Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

Civil Appeal No. 8501 of 2009 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19921 of 2006). Case: Prithipal Singh Vs Satpal Singh (Dead) trough LRs.. Supreme Court (India)

Judgment Cited in 4 Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 8501 of 2009 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19921 of 2006)
CounselFor Appellant: Satinder Singh Gulati, Kamaldeep Gulati and Kailash Chand, Advs. And For Respondents: Rajesh Tyagi and Atishi Dipankar, Advs.
JudgesTarun Chatterjee and R.M. Lodha, JJ.
IssueDelhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 14, 14(1), 14A, 14B, 14C, 14D, 25(3), 25A to 25C and 37(2); Delhi Rent Control Rules, 1959 - Rule 23; Transfer of property Act; Maharashtra Rent Control Act; Limitation Act, 1963; Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908 - Section 151 - Order 9, Rule 13 - Order 37, Rule 4 - Order 57 - Rule 23; Constitution of ...
Citation2009 (14) SCALE 672, 2010 (1) UJ 239 (SC)
Judgement DateDecember 18, 2009
CourtSupreme Court (India)

Judgment:

Tarun Chatterjee, J.

  1. Leave granted.

  2. This is an appeal arising out of a Judgment and order dated 30th of October, 2006 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in CM. No. 65 of 2002, whereby the High Court had dismissed the petition filed by the landlord/appellant and upheld the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. The order of the Additional Rent Controller holding that he is conferred with power to set aside an ex-parte order for eviction in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Order 37 Rule 4 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, "the Code") was thereby affirmed by the High Court in appeal.

  3. The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal may be stated as follows in a nutshell:

    The landlord/appellant filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short "the Rent Act") before the Rent Controller, Delhi for eviction of the Tenant/Respondent from No. 1-C/46, Ramesh Nagar, Namdhari Colony, New Delhi (in short "the tenanted premises"). After filing of the eviction proceeding, summons was issued in compliance with Section 25(3)(a) of the Rent Act to the tenant/respondent to appear before the Rent Controller on a specified date for the purpose of defending the eviction proceeding. The tenant/respondent filed an affidavit by way of an application praying for leave to defend the eviction proceeding after delay of 8 days from the date of service of notice upon him. By an order dated 28th of February, 2001, the Affidavit (the application for leave to defend) was rejected by the Additional Rent Controller as it was filed 8 days beyond the date mentioned in the summons. Since there was a delay of 8 days, Additional Rent Controller held that under the Rent Act, he was not conferred with any power to condone the delay in filing such affidavit. Since the prayer for leave to defend the proceeding was rejected as a follow up action, an eviction order was passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi in favour of the landlord/appellant on 28th of February, 2001 in compliance with Sub-section (4) of Section 25B of the Rent Act.

  4. Feeling aggrieved, the tenant/respondent filed an application for setting aside the aforesaid order dated 28th of February, 2001 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Order 37 Rule 4 and Section 151 of the Code and also prayed for leave to defend the eviction proceeding after condoning the delay in filing the same. By an order dated 7th of December, 2001, the application for setting aside the ex-parte order of eviction passed on 28th of February, 2001 was allowed and the eviction proceeding was restored to its original file by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. The Additional Rent Controller, by the aforesaid order, also allowed the prayer of the tenant/respondent by granting leave to contest the eviction proceeding in compliance with Section 25(B)(4) of the Rent Act.

  5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Addl. Rent Controller, Delhi, the Landlord/Appellant filed an application under Article 227 of the Constitution, which came to be registered as CM No. 65/2002, before the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. The High Court, by the impugned judgment, had dismissed the petition filed by the landlord/appellant holding that there was no patent error or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction by the Trial Court in setting aside order of eviction thereby restoring the affidavit filed by the tenant/respondent for leave to contest the eviction proceeding. However, the High Court observed in the impugned Judgment that the Additional Rent Controller may not have power to condone the delay in seeking leave to defend, but once the eviction decree was passed, the Addl. Rent Controller can set aside an order of eviction and restore the prayer for leave to defend the eviction proceeding by resorting to Order 9 Rule 13 read with Order 37 Rule 4 and Section 151 of the Code.

  6. Against the aforesaid order of the High Court, a Special Leave Petition was filed, which on grant of leave, was heard in presence of the learned Counsel for the parties. Before us, the pivotal issues which were raised by the learned Counsel for the parties, may be stated as follows:

    (i) Whether the Additional Rent Controller, exercising powers and jurisdiction under the Rent Act, which is a special Act, was justified in setting aside the order of eviction which amounted to restoration of and allowing the application for leave to defend the eviction petition although such application was rejected earlier on the ground of delay.

    (ii) Whether the Additional Rent Controller is competent to recall orders of eviction on an application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Order 37 Rule 4 and Section 151 of the Code and condone the delay in applying for leave to defend when he was not conferred with such power to condone the delay in filing the application for leave to defend the eviction proceedings under the Rent Act specially when such an affidavit (application for leave to defend) was earlier rejected by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi on the ground of delay.

  7. We have heard Mr. Gulati, learned Counsel appearing for the Landlord/Appellant and Mr. Tyagi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the tenant/Respondent. We have carefully examined the impugned order of the High Court as well as the order of the Addl. Rent Controller, Delhi. Before we take up the aforesaid issues for our decision, it would be useful for us to refer to some of the relevant provisions of the Rent Act read with Third Schedule of the Rent Act and relevant Rules of the Delhi Rent Control Rules, 1959 (in short, "the Rules").

  8. Chapter III of the Rent Act deals with control of eviction of tenants. Section 14 of the Rent Act protects a tenant from eviction. Section 14(1)(e) of the Rent Act says that when the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member in his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation, the Rent Controller may, on the application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for recovery of possession. By an amendment dated 1st of February, 1975, Section 14 was amended so far as the classes of landlords are concerned. Section 14A confers right on a landlord who, being a person in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
4 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT