Prithipal Singh vs Satpal Singh(D) Th.Lrs

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal may be stated as follows in a nutshell :-

25.That being the position, if Rule 23 cannot be applied in the present case because of applicability of Section 25B, which is a special code and specific procedure for eviction of a tenant by a landlord on the ground of bona fide requirement, we cannot agree with the courts below that in view of Rule 23 of the Rules, the provisions of the Code can be applied in the present case and, therefore, we are of the view that the High Court had acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in setting 1 aside the order of eviction and in allowing the affidavit filed by the tenant for the purpose of defending the proceedings for eviction.

29. For the reasons aforesaid, we are therefore of the view that the High Court has acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in affirming the order of the Additional Rent Controller whereby the Additional Rent Controller had allowed the application for setting aside the order of eviction and restored the application for leave to contest the eviction proceeding when such power, in our view, was not conferred on the Rent Controller to entertain such an application filed by the tenant/respondent.

30. There is another aspect of this matter. It is difficult to understand how an application for leave to contest having been rejected, may be on the ground of delay, could be allowed when it is not disputed by the tenant respondent that no application for condonation of delay 2 could be entertained by the Rent Controller as the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 could not be attracted.

31. That apart, we have also carefully examined the special reason given by the tenant/respondent in the original application for leave to contest and the present application after order of eviction was passed. On a reading of these two applications, we find that the same defence was taken by the tenant after the order of eviction was passed and therefore, we do not think that such reason can be considered to be a special reason within the meaning of Order 37 Rule 4 of the Code for allowing the tenant to defend the proceedings if Order 37 Rule 4 of the Code applies to a special Act.

32. For all the reasons aforesaid, the order of eviction passed by the Additional Rent Controller on 28th of February, 2001 stands restored, the impugned order of the High Court as well as the order of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, are set aside and the application filed by the landlord under Section 14(1)(e) of the Rent Act stands allowed.

33. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, we grant time to the tenant/respondent to vacate the tenanted premises within a period of six months from this date provided the 2 tenant/respondent files an usual undertaking in this Court within one month.

34. In the event, if no undertaking is filed within a month mentioned hereinabove, it will be open for the landlord/appellant to proceed and take delivery of possession in accordance with law.

35. The appeal is thus allowed. There will be no order as to costs.