Vibhu Kumar vs Kuldip Kaur

Indermeet Kaur, J.—Impugned order is dated 24.02.2012 whereby the Rent Control Tribunal (RCT) had refused to condone the delay in the appeal filed by the appellant impugning the judgment and decree dated 14.02.2011; the appeal was not entertained on merits; court was of the view that it is time barred. Record shows that an eviction petition has been filed by the landlord-Kuldip Kaur u/s 4(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA). In the course of the proceedings an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC was filed; this is admittedly a case of second default; petition u/s 14(1)(a) of the DRCA was decreed on 14.02.2011. Appeal filed against such order u/s 38 of the DRCA before RCT was accompanied with an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act. The averments made in the said application have been perused. It is stated that the decree had been passed on 14.02.2011 by the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) on an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code filed by the landlord; contention being that a counsel had been engaged and he was representing the petitioner/tenant on every date and in fact even on 14.02.2011 the status of the case had been confirmed by the said counsel; it was only later in time that the petitioner/tenant learnt about this petition having been decreed on 14.02.2011; he applied for a certified copy of the order on 21.05.2011 and according appeal was filed on 31.05.2011; there is a delay of 75 days in filing the appeal. This is the gist of what is contained in the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act.

Relevant would it be to sate that not only the name of the counsel who was defending the petitioner/tenant before the ARC has been mentioned there is also not a whisper of the dates when the matter was listed and when the counsel had informed the petitioner about the proceedings of the case; even presuming that the counsel was negligent and lackadaisical and he did not follow up his duty, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner's intents were bonafide; his attitude appears to have been more contumacious; he was neglectful and there is no explanation whatsoever why he did not appear before the Trial Court himself even on single date after 17.09.2009 when admittedly (as per the Trial Court record) he had been served with the application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code and had taken time to file a reply but in spite of numerous adjournment granted he did not appear and finally the application was taken up for hearing only on 09.07.2010 and then on 28.10.2010; order was finally passed on 14.02.2011. This intervening gap between 17.09.2009 to 14.02.2011 is of more than almost 1-1/2 years; the litigant/petitioner/tenant choose to remain negligent about the fate of his case; such an attitude deserves little sympathy. That apart as noted supra the averments made in the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act are lacking in all particulars; no dates have been mentioned and not even the name of the counsel who was purportedly representing the petitioner before the ARC and as to what action has been taken against the counsel for not representing the case of the petitioner bonafidely. Thus, the delay in filing the appeal of 75 days remains totally unexplained; such delay being not justifiable, impugned order has rightly declined the application u/s 5 of the Limitation act. Since the appeal itself is time barred, the question of merits could not be adverted to; impugned order suffers from no infirmity. Petition is without any merit; petition is dismissed.