TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (8) TMI 465
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... eviction petition. Consequently, the application for leave to contest the eviction petition was also dismissed. 2.The Respondent herein filed an application for eviction of the Petitioner from the premises in question under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, hereinafter referred to as "the 1949 Act". Notice of the application was issued to the petitioner/tenant in the prescribed form asking him to appear before the Rent Controller within 15 days from the date of service of the notice and to apply for leave to contest the petition. The tenant was served with the summons of the eviction petition on 19th May, 2005. The 15 days' period indicated in the notice for filing the application for leave to contest expired on 3rd June, 2005. Such an application was subsequently made the next day on 4th June, 2005, but was not accompanied by any application for condonation of the delay of one day in making the same. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the said delay in filing the application which was dismissed by the Rent Controller on "4th August, 2007, along with the application for leave to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... whatsoever. The High Court further held that under the circumstances, there was no statutory obligation upon the Rent Controller to frame issues or to try the eviction petition by calling upon the petitioner to lead evidence. The High Court further held that refusal to grant leave to contest amounts to admission of the contents of the eviction petition and if the eviction petition itself satisfies the requirements of Section 13-B of the 1949 Act, an order of eviction has to follow as a matter of course. 5. It is against the said order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court, dismissing the petitioner's Revision Petition, that the present Special Leave Petition has been filed. 6. As indicated hereinbefore, the case of the Petitioner is that both the Rent Controller and the High Court had erred in law in holding that the provisions of the Limitation Act would not apply in a proceeding before the Rent Controller and that Section 18-A of the 1949 Act would have an overriding effect over Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963. It was reiterated that by virtue of Sub-section (7) of Section 18-A of the 1949 Act, the procedure prescribed for trial of suits in the Smal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the context of the 1949 Act, in which it was held that subsidiary rules of interpretation envisage, that in case of ambiguity, a provision should be so read as to avoid hardship, inconvenience, injustice, absurdity and anomaly. It was held that since a statute can never be exhaustive, courts have jurisdiction to pass procedural orders, though not specifically contemplated by statute and that such innovation is permissible on the basis of authority supported by the principles of justice, good sense and reason. 9. Certain other decisions were also referred to by learned counsel which are on similar lines. 10.On behalf of the Respondent it was submitted that Section 13-B had been introduced in the 1949 Act by way of amendment in 2001 to make special provisions for Non-Resident Indians who return to India and are in need of immediate possession of their building or buildings let out by them. Such benefit had been made available to a Non-Resident Indian only after a period of five years from the date on which the Non-Resident Indian became the owner of such building. It was contended that the provisions of the 1949 Act and, in particular, Section- 13-B thereof, would have to be v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that Sub-Section (8) of Section 18-A of the 1949 Act and Section 17 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882, were not attracted to the facts of the case. 13. The views expressed by "the High Court also formed the subject matter of the decision in Prithipal Singh's case (supra), though in the context of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, and the rules framed thereunder. This Court was of the view that Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act was a complete Code by itself and other provisions could not, therefore, be brought into play in - such proceedings. In the instant case, the same principle would apply having regard to the fact that the Rent Controller had not been conferred with power under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. to recall an ex parte order passed earlier. 14. Apart from the above is the view taken by this Court in Prakash H. Jain v. Marie Fernandes [(2003) 8 SCC 431], where it was specifically held that since the Competent Authority under Section 40 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, was not a court but a statutory authority with no power to condone the delay in filing an affidavit and application for leave to contest, the Competent Authority ha....