u I t IN THE HIGH COURT OF RC.REV.230/2010 . SHIV CHANDER SAINI & ORS Through: DELHI AT NEW DEI,HI {u ..... Petitioners Mr. Rahul Pandey, Advocate. versus SARLA DEVI SHUKLA ..... Respondent Tluough: Mr. D.D. Sharma, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. BHASIN ORDER % 25.07.2011 With the consent of the parties I have heard the revision petition today itself finally. The learned Additional Rent Controller has rejected the petitioners' application for leave to contest filed against them by the respondent - landlady in respect of the tenanted premises on the ground of her bona fide requiremcnt of the sarne, on the ground that it had been filed beyond the prescribed period of 15 days from the date of receipt of sulnmons by them. Leamed counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on judgment of this Court in"M/s Flowmore (P) Ltd. vs. Keshav Kunmr Swarup", AIR 1983 Delhi 143 in support of the submission that the leave application could have heen legally filed by him on l't July, 2009, which was the opening day for the Subordinate Courts after the summer vacations since the notice of the eviction petition was received by the petitioner on 1ltl' June, 2009 when the subordinate courts were closed for summer vacations. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order inasmuch as, the learned Additional Rent Controller has himself mentioned that he.had also performed the vacation duty from 14tl' June, 2010 to 30tl'June, 2010 and so during that period the petitioner could rnove the leave application. \)' RC.REV.23O/2OIO page I of2 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified e-J i.>- i- '> After having heard learned counsel for the parties, I arn of the view that the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller cannot be said to be in accordance with law as admittedly the notice of the eviction petition was received by the petitioners - tenants on l ltl' June,,2009 when the subordinate courts were closed for sumlner vacations. Therefore, the petitioners could move the leave to defend application immediately on the re-opening day after the vacations whi"h admittedly they did by filing the leave application on 1't July, 2009. Their leave application was thus not time barred. The impugned order dated 13tr' August, 2010 of the learned Additional Rent Controller is accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded back to the trial Court for deciding the leave to defend application of the petitioners on melits after hearing both the sides and for that purpose the matter shall now be taken up by the learned Additional Rent Controller on 19tr'August,z}Il at 2.00 p.m. JULY 25,20L1 nk RC.REV.230/2010 page 2 of2