Mandatory leave-to-defend deadline under rent control law cannot be extended by inherent power or limitation law.

Chapter VIII of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 creates a special, self-contained procedure for summary eviction proceedings, and the Competent Authority's powers remain confined to the limited statutory purposes for which it is constituted. A tenant or licensee must file the affidavit seeking leave to defend within thirty days of service, and non-compliance triggers the statutory consequence that the landlord's allegations are deemed admitted. In that scheme, the authority cannot invoke inherent powers or Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone delay unless the Act expressly allows it. The belated application for leave to defend was therefore not maintainable, and the challenge to the refusal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Competent Authority under Chapter VIII of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 had power to condone delay in filing the tenant or licensee's affidavit seeking leave to defend eviction proceedings, and whether the failure to file such affidavit within thirty days under Section 43(4)(a) could be overlooked.

Analysis: Chapter VIII of the Act creates a special and self-contained procedure for summary disposal of certain applications, and Section 39 gives it overriding effect over other provisions of the Act and any other law. The Competent Authority is created for a limited statutory purpose and is deemed to be a court only for specific purposes expressly stated in the Act. The deeming provisions in Sections 49, 50 and 51 do not enlarge its powers beyond the limited fields for which the fiction is created. Section 43(4)(a) requires the tenant or licensee to file an affidavit stating the grounds of defence and obtain leave to contest within thirty days of service of summons, failing which the landlord's allegations are deemed admitted and eviction follows. In such a scheme, there is no scope to import an inherent power to condone delay or to apply Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 so as to defeat the statutory consequence attached to non-compliance.

Conclusion: The Competent Authority had no power to condone the delay, and the belated application for leave to defend could not be entertained.

Final Conclusion: The order of the High Court setting aside the condonation of delay and the leave to defend was sustained, and the challenge to it failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute prescribes a mandatory time-limit for seeking leave to contest and creates a self-contained procedure with limited deeming fictions, the authority constituted under it cannot invoke inherent powers or the Limitation Act to condone delay unless the statute expressly permits it.

---