https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276129 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. en-us Fri, 20 Aug 1982 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Oct 2018 17:41:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276129 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 20 Aug 1982 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276129