Civil Revision No. 2457 of 2010 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2457 of 2010 Date of decision : 28.5.2010 Darshan Kumar ....Petitioner Versus Pritam Singh ......Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajeev Dev Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. S. D. ANAND, J. The respondent-landlord filed an eviction action for ejectment of the petitioner-tenant from the tenanted premises detailed in the head note of the application. The petitioner-tenant filed a plea under Section 18-A of East Punjab Rent Restrictions Act (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) therein to resist the consideration of the application under Section 13-A of the Act filed by the respondent-landlord. That application was negatived by the learned Rent Controller on a finding that it had been filed beyond fifteen days which was the period conceptualised by the relevant legislation within which a similar plea can be filed. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-tenant, has not been able to argue anything to assail that Civil Revision No. 2457 of 2010 -2- **** finding. All that he argued was that the procedural law need not impede the grant of an opportunity to a person likely to be adversely affected by the grant of an order of the requested category. There is no force in the plea. The relevant provisions categorically indicate that the plea for leave to defend has to be necessarily filed within a period of fifteen days from the date service was effected upon a party. The aspect of condonation of delay in the relevant behalf came up for adjudication before this Court in Director and Warden of Fisheries, Punjab, Chandigarh Vs. Sant Kaur alias Basant Kaur and another 2007 (2) L.A.R. 646, Babu Ram Vs. Naresh Kumar 2006(2) L.A.R. 229 and Vijay Kumar Vs. Surinder Tamna, 2007(20 L.A.R. 69 and the consistent view of this Court has been that no condonation on that behalf is conceptualised under the Act. That finding notwithstanding, this Court must take notice of an other averment made on behalf of the tenant. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the provisions of Section 13-A of the Act could not have been validly invoked by the respondent-landlord in respect of the tenanted premises which have a commercial character. The plea raised thereby is that provisions of Section 13-A of the Act would apply only if a specified landlord requires those premises for his residential use. The plea was resisted by the learned counsel for the respondents who pointed out that the tenanted premises is a part of Civil Revision No. 2457 of 2010 -3- **** a residential house and, thus, the provisions of Section 18-A of the Act can be validly attracted. Reliance, in support of the view, was placed upon a judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Bachan Lal Vs. Yogeshwar Lal Mehta 2006(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 313. It was held therein that if the shop being used for commercial purpose is part of a residential house, the premises would be treated as residential in character. It would be evident, from a perusal of the copy of the ejectment petition which was shown to the Court at the time of hearing, that there is a specific averment in the course of the para 1 of the petition that the respondent- landlord “is owner/landlord of the shop, which is part of his house”. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed accordingly. The petitioner-tenant shall have two months time from today to vacate the premises aforementioned. May 28, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE Civil Revision No. 2457 of 2010 -4- ****