HARPREET SIN T SINGH v. PARNEET SING SINGH SOHI
Case Details
1 &M) CR-2039-2024 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN TH AT CHANDIGAR UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH CR No.203 Date of Rese Date of De o.2039 of 2024 (O&M) of Reserve: 07.03.2025 of Decision: 04.04.2025 HARPREET SIN T SINGH ......Petitioner Vs PARNEET SING SINGH SOHI ....Respondent CORAM: HON' ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH ESH MANUJA Mr. Sapan Dhir, Advocate Present: Mr. for the petitioner. for th Mr. R.S. Athwal, Advocate Mr. for the respondent. for th HARKESH MAN **** MANUJA, J. (Oral) 1. By way of present petition, challeng By w allenge has been laid to an order date er dated 12.02.2024 passe passed by the learned Rent Cont Controller, Chandigarh whereby a reby an application filed filed on behalf of petitioner-tenant enant seeking condonation of delay delay in filing an applicati plication for leave to defend on his b his behalf has been dismissed thereb thereby resulting into acc to acceptance of eviction petition file ion filed at the instance of responden ondent- landlord by direc directing the petitioner-tenant to ha t to handover the vacant and physic physical possession of the of the demised premised. 2. Briefly stating, in the present cas Brief nt case the respondent-landlord whi d while claiming himself mself to be an NRI; having American erican passport filed an eviction petitio petition against the petitio petitioner-tenant qua building/flat No. lat No.1257/2 Sector 43-B, Chandigarh ndigarh; invoking Section ection 13-B of the East Punjab Ur ab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 194 , 1949 (hereinafter to be to be referred as the ‘1949 Act’). MOHMED ATIK 2025.04.05 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment &M) CR-2039-2024 (O&M) 2 2.1. In the eviction petition, it was plead In th s pleaded that the property in questio question was rented out to out to the petitioner-tenant on 01.05 01.05.2021 @ Rs.12,000/- per mont month, who failed to even to even pay the arrears of rent w.e.f. 01 .e.f. 01.01.2022 and besides it, the sam he same was even required equired by the respondent-landlord for ord for his personal use as he wanted anted to return to India an dia and utilize the same during his v his visits for his stay so as to keep keep in touch with his r his relatives and childhood friends iends. It was also pleaded that th that the respondent-landlo landlord had neither rented out nor g t nor got vacated and was not even even in occupation of any of any other property in U.T., Chandig handigarh. 3. Upon notice, the petitioner-tenant Upon tenant put in appearance through h ugh his Advocate, who who filed his power of attorney o rney on 15.07.2023 before the Re e Rent Controller and and hearing of the eviction petition etition was adjourned to 04.08.202 8.2023. Thereafter, the ev the eviction petition was deferred for ed for 01.09.2023 and on the said dat id date, the petitioner-tena tenant filed an application seeking eeking condonation of delay in movin moving an application for ion for leave to defend along with app ith application seeking grant of leave leave as well while submi submitting that neither any summon mmon nor notice was received by th by the tenant nor even h ven his counsel informed him that the the eviction petition was filed und d under Section 13-B of 1 B of 1949 Act and an application fo ion for leave to defend was to be file be filed within 15 days. days. Further, it was also pleaded th ded that an agreement to sell qua th qua the property in questi question was executed between the pa
Facts
the parties and based thereupon even n even a suit for specific ecific performance was filed by the y the petitioner-tenant on 04.10.202 10.2023 before the Civil C ivil Court; which was pending consid consideration. 4. The respondent-landlord filed his re The his reply to the application moved b oved by the petitioner-ten tenant for seeking condonation ation of delay of 31 days in filin n filing application for lea or leave to defend while submitting itting that there was no provision und n under MOHMED ATIK 2025.04.05 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment &M) CR-2039-2024 (O&M) 3 1949 Act which e hich enabled the Rent Controller to co r to condone the delay and thus, praye , prayed for dismissal of the same. 5. The Rent Controller vide its order The order dated 12.02.2024 dismissed th ssed the application filed filed on behalf of the petitioner-ten tenant for condonation of delay delay in filing the applica pplication for leave to defend. Aggri Aggrieved thereof, the instant petitio petition has been filed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner Lear itioner submits that the non-filing o iling of application for gr for grant of leave to defend within 15 thin 15 days of appearance occurred o rred on account of bona ona fide miscommunication betwee between the petitioner and his lawye lawyer, who never inform informed the petitioner-tenant of his of his right of filing an application fo tion for grant of leave to d ve to defend within 15 days of appeara roller. ppearance before the Rent Controller. Learned counsel further submits tha Lear its that passing of the impugned ord d order by the Rent Cont t Controller has caused serious prejud prejudice to the rights of the petitione titioner- tenant and as su as such instead of non-suiting him him for technical reasons, he wa was required to be per be permitted to file his substantial def defence, so that his substantial righ rights were adjudicated icated upon as per merits. In support port of his submissions, learned couns counsel relies upon the de the decision rendered in the case of se of Director Education and Anr. v nr. vs. Mohd. Shamim a im and Ors, reported as “2018(1) R. 1) R.C.R. (Rent) 50. Reliance has als has also been placed upon d upon the decision passed in the ca the case of S. Manohar Singh vs. vs. S. Aridaman Singh ingh Dhillon reported as 2002(2 02(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 652. Releva elevant paragraph Nos.10 os.10 & 13 thereof are extracted here d hereunder:- 10. “10. It may be noticed that under der the Act, there is no clause whi which xpressly exclude the applicability of expre ty of the Limitation Act to any of t of the proce roceedings under the said Act. ct. Therefore, keeping w in view the t nterpretation of Section 29(2), the pro inter provisions of Section 4 to 24 includin luding hat of Section 5 would be applicable that able to the proceedings under "the Ac e Act" ncluding that to application for leave inclu ave to defend. It may further be notic oticed MOHMED ATIK 2025.04.05 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment &M) CR-2039-2024 (O&M) 4 hat the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muk that t Mukri Gopalan's case has approved t ed the mino inority view in Jokkim Fernandez dez case (supra) whereas the Divisio ivision Benc ench in Ashwani Kumar Gupta's case case has approved the majority view iew of he said Full Bench of the Kerala High the sa High Court. The principle laid down wn by Hon' on'ble Supreme Court in Mukri Gopa Gopalan's case (supra) has come up f up for decisi ecision in other cases as well before th re the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 13. Keeping in view the binding prec precedents of Hon'ble Supreme Court ourt in Mukr ukri Gopalan's case and subsequently ently in Kartick Chandra, I hold that t hat the provi rovisions of Section 5 of the Limitat itation Act would be applicable to t to the proce roceedings under "the Act" includin luding that of application for leave ve to defen efend. Since the provisions of Sectio ection 29(2) and Mukri Gopalan's ca s case were ere not brought to the notice of the f the Court, the judgment given by t by the Divisi ivision Bench is law per incuriam. R m. Rule of per incuriam can be appli pplied wher here a Court omits to consider the bin binding precedent of the same Court urt or superior court tendered on the same super me issue or where the Court omits its to onsider any statute while deciding th consi g that issue. Reference may be made ade to Mamleshwar v. Kanahaiya Lal, A.I.R Mam .I.R. 1975 S.C. 907 wherein it has be s been held eld as under:- "Certainty of the law, co courts-all flowering from conclusion that a decision cases. We do not intend exceptional instances, w oversight a judgment provision or obligatory reasoning and result rea binding precedents. It sho omission. No such situatio embark on the principle o , consistency of rulings and comity rom the same principle-converage to t ision once rendered must later bind li tend to detract from the rule that, s, where by obvious inadvertence nt fails to notice a plain statuto tory authority running counter to t t reached, it may not have the sway t should be a glaring case, an obtrusi uation presents itself here and we do n ple of judgment per incuriam." ity of to the nd like at, in ce or tutory to the ay of trusive do not 6.1.
Legal Reasoning
this Court in the in the case of Paramjit Kaur vs. Gur Gurcharan Singh Walia, reported a orted as 2007(2) R.C.R. .R. (Rent) 589. Relevant paragra aragraph No.11 thereof is extracte xtracted hereunder:- MOHMED ATIK 2025.04.05 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment “11 1. However, on consideration of n of the matter, 1 find force in t in the ontention raised by the learned Coun conte Counsel for the petitioner. As observ served bove, till the filing of the application abov ation under Section 18A of the Act, t ct, the &M) CR-2039-2024 (O&M) 5 parti arties as well as the Court were pr e proceeding with the matter as if t if the petiti etition was filed under Section 13 of t of the Act. Statutory summons were n re not served in prescribed form, thus there serve ere was no valid service under Sectio ection 13-B B of the Act, thereby, the applicati ication for leave to defend could not not be said to be time barred. The reliance pl said ce placed by the learned counsel for t or the espondent on the judgment of this Cou respo s Court in Narinder Singh's case (supr supra) s misconceived as in the said case it h is mi se it has not been held that in absence nce of service of statutory summons also, th servi so, the petition is to be treated as tim s time barre arred, rather in the said case, it was o as observed that the petitioner can ha n have no gr o grievance for non-service of summo mons in Schedule II as plea for leave ave to defen efend was considered on merit. T t. The situation in the present: ca : case pract ractically is also the same, as besi besides holding the application to to be beyo eyond limitation, the learned Rent Co t Controller, in fact, has considered t ed the plea leas of the petitioner on merit.” 6.2 Further, learned counsel for the Furth the petitioner places reliance upo e upon decision in case case of ‘Roop Kishore Sharma vs. vs. Smt. Bachni Devi’, reported a orted as 1997(2) R.C.R. .R. (Rent) 285. Relevant paragr paragraph No.4 thereof is extracte xtracted hereunder:- 4. After considering the rival con contentions of the parties, this Court ourt is f the opinion that the impugned ord of th order dated 29.4.97 is liable to be se be set side. While disposing of such like appl aside applications, a too rigid approach is n is not supposed to be taken by the learned Re supp d Rent Controller if the tenant has raise raised n arguable point in the application an a on. Those points should be scann anned hrough by judicial scrutiny. It is a case throu case where some cause has been giv given y the tenant as to why he has not been by th been able to make the application with within 5 days. If there is a delay on the part 15 da part of the tenant in filing the necessa essary pplication after the statutory period appli iod of 15 days then a liberal approa roach should be given to condone the delay shou elay unless the learned Rent Controll troller hinks that the delay on the part of t think of tenant was mala fide affair. At th At this uncture it is not proper on the part junct art of the trial Court that the delay lay in movi oving the application for defence was was a motivated or mala fide.” MOHMED ATIK 2025.04.05 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment &M) CR-2039-2024 (O&M) 6 6.3. Reliance has also been placed in c Relia d in case of ‘Kimti Lal vs. Jaswinde inder Kaur’ reported a rted as ‘2009(3) Indian Civil Cas Cases 131. The same is extracte xtracted hereunder:- “B.N B.N. Agrawal, J. - Leave granted. 2. 3. Heard learned counsel for the pa he parties. The application filed by the appe appellant under Section 13-B of the Ea e East Punj unjab Urban Rent Restrictions Act, 1 ct, 1949 for grant of leave to contest t est the andlord's prayer for eviction was dism landl s dismissed by the Rent Controller on t on the grou round that the same was barred by t by time. The High Court dismissed t ed the evision petition filed against the order revisi rder of the Rent Controller. Hence, th e, this ppeal by special leave. appe 4. Having heard learned counsel nsel for the parties and perused t sed the pplication filed by the appellant, we a appli we are of the view that in the facts an ts and ircumstances of the present case, the R circu the Rent Controller should have grant ranted eave to the appellant to contest the pet leave petition filed by the landlord. 5. Accordingly, the appeal is allow allowed, impugned orders are set asi t aside nd leave is granted to the appellant to and l nt to contest the eviction petition filed iled by he respondent. Eight weeks' time is all the r is allowed to the appellant to file writt ritten statement. The Rent Controller is dire state directed to dispose of the main petitio etition withi ithin a period of six months from the the date of receipt/production of copy opy of his order.” this o 7. On the other hand, learned counsel On t unsel for the respondent while relyin relying upon the decision cision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Apex Court in the case of Om Parkas rkash vs. Ashwani Kum Kumar Bassi reported as “2010 AIR 0 AIR (Supreme Court) 3791 and the decisions passed assed by this Court in the case(s) ase(s) Babu Ram vs. Naresh Kuma umar reported as “200 2003(3) R.C.R. (Rent) 49; Raju aju vs. Gurdeep Singh reported a orted as “2017(3) PLR 68 R 682; Director and Warden of Fi of Fisheries, Punjab Chandigarh v rh vs. Sant Kaur @ Bas Basant Kaur and another reported ported as “2007(11) R.C.R. (Civil) 53 il) 533 and Suman vs. B vs. Bhagat Ram reported as “2008(1 08(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 313 submits th its that the Rent Controll ontroller was having no jurisdiction t ction to condone the delay by invokin nvoking MOHMED ATIK 2025.04.05 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment &M) CR-2039-2024 (O&M) 7 Section 5 of the of the Limitation Act and grant ext nt extension of time in favour of th r of the petitioner-tenant t enant towards filing of application for on for grant of leave to defend. Learne Learned counsel further su ther submits that the period of 15 days 5 days as prescribed under Section 18 on 18-A of the 1949 Act w Act was sacrosanct and the same co could not be extended by the Cou e Court and, thus, prayed ed for dismissal of the present revis t revision petition. 8. I have heard learned counsel for th I hav for the parties and gone through th ugh the paper book of this of this case. I am unable to find merit ition. merit in the present revision petition. 9. Before proceeding further in the mat Befo he matter, it is important to have a clos a close look at the relevan relevant provisions of 1949 Act, which which read as under:- Section 13-B Secti B. Right to recover immediate po 13-B scheduled building and/or non-resid sched resident Indian:- resid e possession of residential building esidential building to accrue to No ing or Non- (1) Where an owner is a Non-Resid esident Indian and returns to India an ia and he residential building or schedule the duled building and/or non-residenti dential uilding, as the case may be, let out by build t by him or her, is required for his or h or her se, or for the use of any one ordinari use, narily living with and dependent on hi n him r her, he or she, may apply to the Co or he Controller for immediate possession sion of such building or buildings, as the case m such ase may be : Provided that a right to apply ply in respect of such a building und under his Section, shall be available only a this S ly after a period of five years from t m the ate of becoming the owner of such a date h a building and shall be available on le only nce during the life time of such an own once owner. (2) Where the owner referred to in su in sub-section (1), has let out more tha e than ne residential building or schedule one duled building and/or non-residenti dential uilding, it shall be open to him or he build r her to make an application under th er that sub-section in respect of only one res sub e residential building or one schedul eduled uilding and/or one non-residential bui build er. l building, each chosen by him or her. (3) Where an owner recovers po s possession of a building under th r this ection, he or she shall not transfer it Secti er it through sale or any other means ans or et it out before the expiry of a period let it iod of five years from the date of takin taking posse ossession of the said building, failing ling which, the evicted tenant may app apply MOHMED ATIK 2025.04.05 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment &M) CR-2039-2024 (O&M) 8 o the Controller for an order direc to th irecting that he shall be restored t ed the posse ossession of the said building and t nd the Controller shall make an ord
Arguments
Learned counsel for the petitioner al Lear ner also relies the decision rendered b ered by
Decision
order acco ccordingly.” Section 18-A Secti 18A. [ Special procedure for disposal 18A. osal of applications under Section 13 n 13-A or Section 13-B.] or Se (1) Every application under [section ction 13-A or section 13-B] [Substitut stituted ide Punjab Act 9 of 2001.] shall be vide l be dealt with in accordance with t ith the proce rocedure specified in this section. (2) After an application under er [section 13-A or section 13 13-B] Substituted vide Punjab Act 9 of 2001 [Subst 2001.] is received, the Controller sha r shall ssue summons for service on the tenant issue nant in the form specified in Schedule I ule II. 3)(a) (3)(a (b) MOHMED ATIK 2025.04.05 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment The summons issued unde under sub-section (2) shall be served o ved on the tenant as far as may b ay be in accordance with the provisio visions of Order V of the First First Schedule to the Code of Civ Civil Procedure, 1908. The Co Controller shall in addition direct th ct that a copy of the summons mons be also simultaneously sent nt by registered post acknowled wledgement due addressed to the tena tenant or his agent empowered ered to accept the service at the pla place where the tenant or his ag is agent actually and voluntarily resid esides or carries on business or s or personally works for gain and th d that another copy of the summ summons be affixed at some conspicuo icuous part of the building in re n respect whereof the application und under [section 13-A or section 1 ion 13-B] [Substituted vide Punjab Act Act 9 de. of 2001.] has been made. When an acknowledgeme gement purporting to be signed by t by the tenant or his agent is is received by the Controller or t or the registered article contain ntaining the summons is received ba back with an endorsement pu t purporting to have been made by by a postal employee to the ef e effect that the tenant or his agent h nt has refused to take delivery very of the registered article and a nd an endorsement is made by by a process server to the effect that that a copy of the summons ha s has been affixed as directed by t by the Controller on a conspi nspicuous part of building and t d the Controller after such en h enquiry as he deems fit, is satisfi tisfied 9 about the correctness of th s of the endorsement, he may declare th re that there has been a valid serv ant. service of the summons on the tenant. The tenant on whom the service rvice of summons has been declared red to &M) CR-2039-2024 (O&M) (4) have ave been validly made under sub-secti section (3), shall have no right to conte ontest he prayer for eviction from the [reside the p esidential building or scheduled buildin ilding and/o nd/or non residential building] [Sub [Substituted vide Punjab Act No. 9 . 9 of 2001 001.], as the case may be, unless he f s he files an affidavit stating the groun rounds on w n which he seeks to contest the applic pplication for eviction and obtains lea leave rom the Controller as hereinafter from fter provided, and in default of h of his ppearance in pursuance of the summ appe mmons or his obtaining such leave, t ve, the statement made by the specified landlor state dlord or, as the case may be, the wido idow, wido idower, child, grandchild or the the widowed daughter-in-law of su f such pecified landlord [or the owner, who i speci ho is non resident Indian] [Inserted vi d vide Punj unjab Act 9 of 2001.] in the applicatio cation for eviction shall be deemed to d to be admi dmitted by the tenant and the applica plicant shall be entitled to an order f er for viction of the tenant. evict (5) The Controller may give to to the tenant leave to contest t st the pplication if the affidavit filed by the appli the tenant discloses such facts as wou s would isentitle the specified landlord or, disen or, as the case may be, the wido idow, wido idower, child, grand- child or widow owed daughter-in-law [or the owne owner, who ho is non resident Indian] [Inserted ted vide Punjab Act 9 of 2001.] of su f such pecified landlord from obtaining an or speci n order for the recovery of possession sion of he [residential building or schedule the [ duled building and/or non residenti dential uilding] [Substituted vide Punjab Act build Act No. 9 of 2001.], as the case may b ay be, nder [section 13-A or section 13-B] unde B] [Substituted vide Punjab Act 9 t 9 of 001.]. 2001 (6) Where leave is granted to the te he tenant to contest the application, t n, the Cont ontroller shall commence the hearing ring on a date not later than one mon month rom the date on which the leave grant from ranted to the tenant to contest and sha d shall ear the application from day-to-day hear day till the hearing is concluded an d and pplication decided. appli (7) Notwithstanding anything conta ontained in this Act, the Controller sha r shall while hile holding an inquiry in a procee oceeding to which this section appli pplies ncluding the recording of evidence, fol inclu e, follow the practice and procedure of re of a Cour ourt of Small Causes. MOHMED ATIK 2025.04.05 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 10 &M) CR-2039-2024 (O&M) (8) No appeal or second appeal eal shall lie against an order for t or the ecovery of possession of any [residen recov sidential building or scheduled buildin ilding and/o nd/or non residential building] [Sub [Substituted vide Punjab Act No. 9 . 9 of 2001 001.] made by the Controller in acco accordance with the procedure specifi ecified n this Section : in thi Provided that the High Court ma rt may, for the purpose of satisfying itse g itself hat an order made by the Controller un that a er under this section is according to la to law, all for the records of the case and pas call f pass such order in respect thereto as o as it hinks fit. think (9) Save as otherwise provided in in this section, the procedure for t or the dispo isposal of an application for eviction tion under [section 13-A or section 1 on 13- B] [ ] [Substituted vide Punjab Act 9 o 9 of 2001.] shall be the same as t as the proce rocedure for the disposal of applicatio cations by the Controller. Schedule-II Sche Schedule II [See sub-section (2) of Section 1 on 18-A] Form of summons in a case ase where recovery of possession sion of residential building or scheduled [resi led and/or non-residential buildin ilding] Substituted vide Punjab Act 9 of 2001 [Sub 2001.] is prayed for under [section 13 n 13-A r section 13-B] [Substituted vide Pun or se Punjab Act No. 9 of 2001.] of the Ea e East Punj unjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 194 , 1949. (Name, description and place of e of residence of the tenant) Whereas Shri------------------- ----------------------------has filed an a pplication (a copy of which is annexed appli exed) for your eviction from------------- -------- here insert the particulars of the reside (here esidential building or scheduled buildin ilding nd/or non-residential building unde and/o under [section 13-A or section 13 13-B] Substituted vide Punjab Act No. 9 of 2 [Sub of 2001.] of the East Punjab Urban Re n Rent Restr estriction Act, 1949. Now, therefore, you are hereb ereby summoned to appear before t re the Cont ontroller within fifteen days of the se e service thereof and to obtain the lea leave f the Controller to contest the applica of th plicant for eviction under [section 13 n 13-A r section 13-B] [Substituted vide Pun or se Punjab Act No. 9 of 2001.] of the sa e said Act, ct, in default whereof, the applicant ant will be entitled at any time after t ter the xpiry of the said period of fifteen days expir days to obtain an order for your evictio viction rom the said [residential building o from ng or scheduled building and/or no r non- esidential building] [Substituted vide P resid ide Punjab Act 9 of 2001.]. MOHMED ATIK 2025.04.05 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment &M) CR-2039-2024 (O&M) 11 Leave to appear and contest the st the application may be obtained on a on an pplication to the Controller supported appli orted by an affidavit as is referred to d to in sub-section (5) of Section 18-A of the sa sub he said Act. Given under my hand and seal th al this..............day of......19... Controller” 10. The aforementioned provisions hav The s have been extensively dealt with b with by the Hon’ble Ape e Apex Court as well as this Court Court and the exposition of law mad w made thereupon in brief n brief is discussed hereunder:- (a) In case of Roop Kishore Shar Sharma (supra), the delay in filing filing of application for leave to defend was appli d was condoned merely for the reaso reason that liberal approach was required that uired to be adopted in such matter matters; unless delay on the part of tenant was unles nt was a mala fide affair. (b) In case of Paramjit Kaur (su (supra), it was decided in favour o vour of tenant while condoning the delay in tenan elay in granting leave to defend for th for the reason that the statutory summons w reaso ons were not served in prescribed for ed form and thus, there was no valid service u and t rvice under Section 13-B of the Act. (c) The Hon’ble Supreme Court, ourt, in case of Kimti Lal (supra) we went on to grant leave in favour of tenant t on to enant to contest in the peculiar facts an s and circumstances of the case, without l circu thout laying down any law on the poi he point as to whether the provisions of Se as to of Section 5 of Limitation Act, 196 ct, 1963 could be invoked by the Rent Co could nt Controller for condoning delay elay in favour of tenant while dealing with favou with applications for grant of leave leave to defend. defen (d) Further, exposition of law m law made by this Court in case of se of S. Manohar Singh (supra) whereby Man ereby it was held that provisions o ions of Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 Secti 1963 would apply for the purpose o pose of MOHMED ATIK 2025.04.05 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment &M) CR-2039-2024 (O&M) 12 condonation of delay while dealing w cond aling with application for grant of leav of leave to defend was discussed and disting to de distinguished in a later decision in cas case of Babu Ram (supra) with the fo of the following discussion in paragrap ragraph Nos.10 & 11 thereof:- Nos. “10. The applicability of the p the provisions of the Act, therefore, is e, is to be judged not from the terms of s of the Limitation Act but by advertin erting to the provisions of the Act re t relating to filing of a petition und under Section 13-A of the Act for se or seeking immediate possession of of a 'residential' or 'scheduled build building' for which a right accrues ues to certain persons. It is to be seen seen by adverting to the provisions an ns and where the procedure provided t ed therein is a complete Code itself, self, it does not then admit the app application of the provisions of t of the Limitation Act mentioned in Sect Section 29(2) thereof. A reference to t to the provisions of Sections 13-A and and 18-A of the Act would show that t hat the procedure provided regarding ri ng right to recover immediate possessio session of 'residential' or 'scheduled bu d building', is a complete code by itse y itself and the same does not admit the it the application of any provision of t of the Limitation Act mentioned in in Section 29(2) thereof. It is al s also appropriate to note that in term terms of Section 18-B of the Act, it t, it is provided that Section 18-A or an r any rule made for the purpose thereo ereof, shall have effect notwithstandi anding anything inconsistent therewi rewith contained elsewhere in this Ac s Act or in any other law for the tim e time being in force. This also wou would exclude the applicability of t of the Limitation Act. The procedure ure prescribed for seeking recovery ery of immediate possession of 'residen sidential' or 'scheduled building' in term terms of Section 13-A of the Act, wou would not admit the applicability of t of the provisions of the Limitation Act. Act. In fact, in Ashwani Kumar Gupta upta's case (supra) also, it was held eld that the procedure provided und under Section 13-A of the Haryana ana Act is a Code unto itself and and it constitutes special provisions no ns not only vis-a-vis other provisions ons of the Haryana Act but also any o ny other law which is inconsistent wi t with the provisions of Section 13-A a A and Section 18-A of the Act. As suc s such, the tenant cannot invoke the p he provisions of the Limitation Act f ct for seeking condonation of delay in ay in filing the application. Besides, t es, the MOHMED ATIK 2025.04.05 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment &M) CR-2039-2024 (O&M) 13 Rent Controller cannot condone one the delay in filing an application f ion for seeking leave to contest an app application for eviction under Sectio ection 13-A of the Act. 11. The position, therefore, is re, is that the provisions of the Limitatio itation Act in respect of an application ation for condoning the delay to file a file an application for leave to contest ntest an application filed under Sectio ection 13-A(2) of the Act which is requ s required to be filed with 15 days of t s of the receipt of summons, are not app t applicable. The position as pleaded ded by the petitioner is that the te e tenant-respondent did not file a ile an application for seeking leave ve to contest the petition filed und under Section 13-A of the Act within th in the period of 15 days from the date date of service of summons. The resp respondent, however, subsequently o tly on 7.2.2005 submitted an applicati ication for condoning the delay and f nd for grant of leave to defend the case e case. The application being barred red by time, the Rent Controller had n ad no jurisdiction to grant the leave ave to contest the petition and thereby reby impliedly condone the delay und under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. T ct. The said provision is inapplicable able to the procedure provided in resp respect of right to recover immedia ediate possession of 'residential' or 'sch r 'scheduled building' in terms of Sectio ection 13-A of the Act. The provisions sions of the Limitation Act having be g been held to be inapplicable in the he matter of procedure provided f ed for seeking recovery of immedia ediate possession of 'residential' al' or 'scheduled building' in terms rms of Section 13-A of the Act, t t, the application for leave to contest ntest was not liable to be granted. T d. The application seeking leave to con ontest the petition under Section 13 n 13-A of the Act having not been filed iled within time as has been stipulated ated in the statute itself as a condition ion precedent for the Rent Controller ller to proceed further to enquire the m he merits in defence, the Rent Controll troller is obliged under the constraining ining influence of compulsion statutori utorily cast upon it to pass an order o er of eviction in the manner envisag isaged ” under Section 13-A of the Act.” Similarly decision in case of ase of S. Manohar Singh (supra) wa was also discussed and distinguished by a also ed by another Co-ordinate Bench of th h of this Court in case of Suman (supra) to ho Cour ) to hold that the provision of Section ection 5 MOHMED ATIK 2025.04.05 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment &M) CR-2039-2024 (O&M) 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was n of th was not to apply while dealing wi ng with application filed by the tenant for g appli for grant of leave to defend under th nder the provisions of 1949 Act. Relevant provi evant paragraph Nos.11 to 14 of th of the judgment are reproduced hereunder: judgm nder:- 11. The question that arise arises for consideration is wheth hether provisions of Section 5 as also lso Section 29(2) of the Limitation A n Act, 1963 can be said to be inc inconsistent or to be construed ed as supplemental to each other. The . The answer lies in the judgment of t of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the ca he case of Gopal Sardar (supra) where herein it has been observed as under: 13. ...even though ugh special or local law does not state state in so many words rds expressly that Section 5 of t of the Limitation Act is t is not applicable to the proceedin edings under those Acts, cts, from the scheme of the Act an ct and having regard to to various provisions such expre xpress exclusion could b ld be gathered. Thus, a conscious an s and intentional omissi ission by the legislature to exclu xclude application of Sec Section 5 of the Limitation Act to t to the proceedings under nder Section 8 of the Act, looking to t to the scheme of the Act, Act, nature of right of pre-emption an n and express applicatio ation of Section 5 of the Limitation A on Act to the other provisi ovisions under the Act, itself means an ns and amounts to "expr express exclusion" of it satisfying t ng the requirement of Sec f Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act. (Emphasis supplied plied) 12. In the opinion of the Hon Hon'ble Apex Court, even if there is n e is no specific or express exclusion of n of Section 5 of the Limitation Act in ct in a special or local law and such sp h special/local law does not provide f ide for extension of time or condonation ation, Section 5 of the Limitation Act w ct will not apply and the provisions mu s must be construed to exclude Section ction 5 of the Limitation Act. In the ligh light of ratio of this Judgment, there here is no escape but to hold that Sec Section 5 of the Limitation Act is n is not MOHMED ATIK 2025.04.05 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment &M) CR-2039-2024 (O&M) 15 applicable for condoning delay elay in making application for leave ave to contest eviction petition. 13. There is another importan ortant and relevant provision which mu h must be construed to exclude the the applicability of Section 5 of t of the Limitation Act. Sub-section 18 18-B of the East Punjab Urban Re Rent Restriction Act, 1949 reads as un as under: 18-B. Section 18 18-A to have over-riding effect-Sectio ection 18-A or any rule ule made for the purpose thereof sha f shall have effect notw notwithstanding anything inconsiste sistent therewith containe tained elsewhere in this Act or in a in any other law for time ime being in force. 14. A bare reading of this Se is Section makes it abundantly clear th ar that procedure prescribed under Sec Section 18-A of the Act has over-ridin riding effect on all other provisions of t s of this Act or any other law for the tim e time being in force to the extent of inc f inconsistency. This can be construed ued to be a provision which expressly ssly excludes Section 5 of the Limitatio itation Act as otherwise it tends to rend render the provisions of Section 18-A A of the Act read with Form prescrib scribed which contains specific period riod of limitation for seeking leave to to contest the eviction petition and do d does not envisage any extension or re or relaxation of the prescribed period iod as otiose. Thus, I am of the conside nsidered view that the view expressed sed in the case of Babu Ram v. Na . Naresh Kumar (supra) needs to to be followed. (e) Above all, even the Hon’bl Hon’ble Apex Court in case of O Om Parkash (supra) dealt with the provi Park e provisions of East Punjab Urban Re an Rent Restriction Act, 1949 and went on to Restr t on to hold that Rent Controller has n r has no jurisdiction to condone delay under S jurisd nder Section 5 of Limitation Act, whi t, while deali ealing with an application for leav or leave to defend. Relevant paragrap ragraph Nos.17 & 18 of the judgment are rep Nos. re reproduced hereunder:- 17. Section 13-B is a powe ower given to a Non-Resident India Indian owner of a building to obtain im in immediate possession of a residenti dential building or scheduled building ing when required for his or her use use or MOHMED ATIK 2025.04.05 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment &M) CR-2039-2024 (O&M) 16 for the use of any one ordinarily rily living with and dependent on him him or her. The right has been limited ited to one application only during t ng the life time of the owner. Section 1 on 18-A(2) of the aforesaid Act provid ovides that after an application und under Section 13-B is received, t d, the Controller shall issue summons ons for service on the tenant in the for e form specified in Schedule II. The sai e said form indicates that within 15 da 5 days of service of the summons the ten e tenant is required to appear before t re the Controller and apply for leave eave to contest the same. There is n is no specific provision to vest the the Rent Controller with authority rity to extend the time for making of su f such affidavit and the application. T n. The Rent Controller being a creatur ature of statute can only act in terms rms of the powers vested in him by sta statute and cannot, therefore, enterta tertain an application under Section 5 o n 5 of the Limitation Act for condonatio nation of delay since the statute does no es not vest him with such power. 18. In such case, neither the the Rent Controller nor the High Cou Court had committed any error of of law in rejecting the Petitioner ioner's application for seeking leave to e to contest the suit, since the same ha e had been filed beyond the period pre prescribed in the form in Schedule II le II of the Act referred to in Section 18 n 18-A(2) thereof.” 11. In view of the detailed discussion m In vi sion made hereinabove, the principle o ciple of law which emerg emerges is that Sections 13-B & 18 & 18-A of 1949 Act which provide vide for unique and extrao extraordinary right to recover imme immediate possession of residential o ntial or scheduled buildin uilding and/or non-residential buildin uilding is a complete code by itself an self and the same does no oes not admit the application of any of any provision of the Limitation A tion Act mentioned in Sec in Section 29(2) thereof; procedure un ure under Section 18-A of the act rea act read with the Form p orm prescribed under Schedule II w e II which contains specific period o eriod of limitation for see or seeking leave to contest eviction p ction petition, has over-riding effect o ffect on all other provisio ovisions of this Act or any other law r law for the time being in force to th e to the extent of inconsis consistency and, therefore, has to be c to be construed as an express exclusio xclusion to Section 5 of the of the Limitation Act especially when y when the provision of Section 18-A o A or MOHMED ATIK 2025.04.05 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment &M) CR-2039-2024 (O&M) 17 Schedule-II nowh nowhere provide for any extension ension or relaxation of the prescribe escribed period of 15 day 5 days; but to the contrary provide vide for entitlement of the landlord dlord to obtain an order o rder of eviction at any time after the er the expiry of said period of 15 day 15 days. Therefore, the Re the Rent Controller being a creature o ature of Statute can only act in terms o terms of powers vested un ted under the Statute and thus, cann , cannot entertain an application und n under Section 5 of the f the Limitation Act for condonation nation of delay; such power being eing not vested to him und m under statute. 12. Accordingly, applying the expositio Acco osition of law referred to hereinabov inabove, no illegality or p y or perversity can be found with th ith the impugned order passed by th by the learned Rent Con nt Controller, while rejecting the app e application moved by the petitione titioner- tenant under Sect r Section 5 of the Limitation Act bei ct being not maintainable; followed b wed by an order of evic f eviction against him. Furthermore rmore, no merit can be found in th in the submissions made s made on behalf of the petitioner-ten tenant that he was never served wi ed with any notice of the of the eviction petition in the prescr rescribed Form/Schedule-II as even even a certified copy of py of a summon issued to him was pe perused by the Court at the time o time of hearing which cl ich clearly depicted that not only it nly it was mentioned therein that th that the summon was abo as about a petition under Section 1 tion 13-B of East Punjab Urban Re an Rent Restriction Act, b Act, but it was also reflected specifica ecifically that the tenant was required uired to appear in pursuan ursuance of the summons and obtain obtain leave of the Rent Controller roller to contest the evicti eviction petition with fifteen days an and in default, the landlord will b will be entitled for order order of eviction. Relevant extract fr tract from the copy of summon is eve is even reproduced hereun hereunder:- “NO NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IN PETI UND NDER SECTION 13-B OF EAST UNJAB URBAN RENT RESTRICTION PUN CT ACT ETITION RC or ARC/187/2023 HI DR PARNEET SINGH SODHI TION VS HARPREET SINGH 023 PREVIOUS DATE: 29-05-2023 Next Date: 15.07.2023 To MOHMED ATIK 2025.04.05 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment &M) CR-2039-2024 (O&M) 18 HARPREET SINGH Son: - LABH SINGH FLAT NO.1257/2 SECTOR 43 B ERMANENT RESIDENT OF HNO.26 0 WARD NO 5 MANSA PUNJAB PERM 10 W 43 B CHANDIGARH O.265 STREET NO.265 STREET NO Whereas Petitioner DR P R PARNEET SINGH SOHI has filed a led an pplication (a copy of which is ann appli s annexed) for your eviction from t m the prop roperty in dispute (mentioned in the the copy of the petition) under Sectio ection 13-B B of the East Punjab Urban Rent R nt Restriction Act, 1949. Now, therefor refore, ou are hereby summoned to appear you a ear before the Controller within fifte fifteen days ays of the service thereof and to ob o obtain the leave of the Controller ller to ontest the petition for eviction unde conte under Section 13-B of the said Act, ct, in defau efault whereof, the applicant will be e be entitled at any time after the expiry piry of he said period of fifteen days to obtain the sa btain an order for your eviction from t om the prop roperty in dispute. Leave to appear ear and context the application may ay be obtai btained on an application to the Cont ontroller supported by an affidavit as it as is eferred to in sub-section (5) of Section refer tion 18-A of the said Act. Dated, this day of 30-05 05-2023. RENT CONTROLLER Chandigarh” 13. In view of above discussion pre In v n present revision petition is thu is thus, dismissed being d eing devoid of merits thereby uphold upholding the dated 12.02.2024 passe passed by the learned Re ed Rent Controller, Chandigarh. 14. All pending applications, if any, shal All p y, shall stand disposed of. April 04, 2025 Atik (HARKESH MANUJA) (HA JUDGE Whe Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Whe Yes/N Yes/No Yes/No Yes/N MOHMED ATIK 2025.04.05 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment