Giani Karnail Singh vs Bachan Singh

J.V. Gupta, Acting C.J.—This revision petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller dated February 5, 1988, whereby the application filed by the tenant for leave to contest the proceedings u/s 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, (hereinafter called the Act), was dismissed as barred by time.

The landlord Bachan Singh filed the application u/s 13-A of the Act. Necessary application for leave to contest the same as contemplated u/s 18-A of the Act, was filed within, time but the same was not supported by an affidavit. However, no order as such was passed thereon. Meanwhile, the tenant moved another application supported by an affidavit for leave to contest. Along therewith, he also moved an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act far extention of time. The learned Rent Controller found that the provisions of Section 5 of the Act, were not applicable to those proceedings and therefore, he dismissed the application as barred by time.

On behalf of the petition, it has been stated that the first application was filed within time, but the same was not supported by affidavit and, therefore, the affidavit could be allowed to be filed consequently. The question of extending time as such u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, did not arise However, in this Court, an affidavit has been filed by the local counsel Shri Kundan Singh Nagra, Advocate that the though the affidavit of Karnail Singh, tenant, was also prepared the same day, i. e. August 25, 1986, and it was got attested the same day, but his Clerk filed the application without the said affidavit. According to the said affidavit, the mistake was bona fide.

After hearing the learned counsel, I find that the question of extending time u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, as such did not arise. The earlier application was filed within time though not supported by an affidavit The affidavit could be filed later on payment of costs, if any, and that being so, the whole approach of the learned Rent Controller in this behalf was wrong and illegal. The application for leave to contest could not be dismissed on the ground of limitation.

Consequently, this revision petition succeeds The impugned order is set aside and the case is sent back to the Rent Controller to decide the application for permission to contest the application u/s 13-A on merits, in accordance with law. Since further proceedings ware stayed at the time of the motion hearing, the parties are directed to appear before the Rent Controller on June 6, 1990.