Closure during limitation period and genuine triable issue in bona fide requirement eviction dispute justified leave to defend.

Where the Rent Controller's office remained closed during the limitation period, an application for leave to contest filed on the reopening day was treated as timely under the closure principle reflected in the General Clauses Act; Section 5 of the Limitation Act was not the governing provision, but the filing was still valid. On the merits, the tenant raised a genuine triable issue because the lease clause on user of the premises was capable of more than one construction and the landlord's pleaded bona fide requirement, including residential, business and family needs, required evidence. Leave to defend was therefore to be granted and the matter remitted for adjudication.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an application for leave to contest, filed on the reopening day after the Rent Controller's office remained closed during the limitation period, was within time. (ii) Whether the tenant had disclosed a triable issue so as to merit leave to defend the eviction petition on the ground of bona fide personal requirement.

Issue (i): Whether an application for leave to contest, filed on the reopening day after the Rent Controller's office remained closed during the limitation period, was within time.

Analysis: The prescribed period under the Delhi Rent Control Act was treated as a period within which the act had to be done in a court or office. The closure of the Rent Controller's court during the relevant period attracted the principle embodied in Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The application could therefore validly be filed on the first day when the court reopened. Section 5 of the Limitation Act did not govern the proceedings, but that did not defeat the application once the closure rule applied.

Conclusion: The application for leave to contest was within time.

Issue (ii): Whether the tenant had disclosed a triable issue so as to merit leave to defend the eviction petition on the ground of bona fide personal requirement.

Analysis: The purpose of letting recorded in the lease clause was susceptible to more than one construction, particularly as to whether the premises were let only for residence or also for company purposes. The landlord's pleadings on bona fide requirement, including residential need, business need, and the need of family members, also required evidence. In such circumstances, the question could not be finally determined summarily and raised a real triable issue.

Conclusion: Leave to defend ought to have been granted.

Final Conclusion: The revision was allowed, the tenant was permitted to contest the eviction petition, and the matter was remitted to the Rent Controller for adjudication on the specified issues.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the court remains closed during the prescribed period, the act may be done on reopening day under the General Clauses Act, and leave to defend in a bona fide requirement eviction case must be granted when the lease purpose and landlord's need raise a genuine triable issue.

---