Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Rent Controller had power to condone the delay in filing the application for leave to contest an eviction petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.
Analysis: The statutory scheme required the tenant to apply for leave to contest within 15 days of service of summons in the prescribed form. Section 18-A of the Act provided a special and self-contained procedure for such eviction proceedings and did not confer any power on the Rent Controller to extend time. The Rent Controller, being a statutory authority functioning as a persona designata, could act only within the powers expressly conferred by the Act. In the absence of any provision enabling condonation of delay, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, was held inapplicable to such proceedings.
Conclusion: The Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to condone the delay, and the delayed application for leave to contest was rightly rejected.
Final Conclusion: The special leave petition failed, and the dismissal of the eviction-related challenge was affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a special rent statute prescribes a complete and time-bound procedure for filing leave to contest and does not confer power to enlarge time, the general provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, are excluded and delay cannot be condoned by the Rent Controller.