Sham Lal vs Satish Kumar

Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.—The landlord-petitioner filed the ejectment petition against the tenant-respondent u/s 13 of the East Punjab Urban

Rent Restriction Act, 1949, on the ground that the property in dispute bearing House No. 26-D, situated at Head Water Works Road, Golden

Avenue, Amritsar, was let out on rent at the rate of Rs. 950/- per month. It was claimed that the tenant had defaulted in making payment of rent

and, thus, there are arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.08.1992 upto the date of filing of the petition at the rate of Rs. 950/- per month against the tenant-

respondent. Upon notice, the tenant-respondent filed written statement wherein it was stated that the rate of rent was Rs. 200/- per month and not

Rs. 950/- per month as claimed by the landlord-petitioner. It was also stated that the rent upto 19th July, 1995, had been paid.

The landlord-petitioner filed replication controverting the averments made in the written statement.

On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:--

1) What is the rate of rent of the demised premises? OP Parties.

2) Whether the tender made by the respondent is short and invalid? OPA

3) Relief.

Learned Rent Controller took issues No. 1 and 2 for consideration together being interconnected and on appreciation of evidence, came to the

conclusion that rate of rent was Rs. 200/- per month and not Rs. 950/- per month as claimed by the landlord-petitioner. It was further recorded

that tender made by the tenant-respondent on the first date of hearing at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month was valid and legal. Having recorded the

aforesaid finding, the eviction petition was dismissed by the Rent Controller on 27th October, 1999.

Feeling aggrieved the landlord-petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. The appeal having been filed beyond limitation, the

appellate authority had declined to condone the delay and accordingly, dismissed the appeal as time-barred, which necessitated the landlord-

petitioner to approach this Court by way of present revision petition.

Learned counsel for the landlord-petitioner submitted that Rent Controller had decided the petition on 27th October, 1999. The landlord-

petitioner applied for certified copy of the judgment on 3rd November, 1999, which was prepared on 20th November, 1999 and was received by

the landlord-petitioner on 25th November, 1999. The appeal was filed on 8th December, 1999. According to the learned counsel, in view of

Section 15(1)(b) of the Act, the appeal was required to be filed within a period of 15 days from the date of the order.

It was submitted that the ground for claiming condonation of delay was that landlord-petitioner was not well and had undergone treatment for

which a prescription slip (Ex.A-1) was produced depicting that the appellant remained under medical treatment and the doctor had advised him

bed-rest for 7 days. It was claimed that due to ill health of the landlord-petitioner, the delay in filing the appeal before the appellate authority had

occurred. It was urged that the delay was unintentional and bona fide and sufficient cause was shown to condone the delay for filing the appeal

before the appellate authority.

On the other hand, the tenant-respondent besides supporting the order passed by the appellate authority submitted that the plea taken before

the appellate authority was not substantiated by the landlord-petitioner.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that the appellate authority had taken too technical view for not condoning the delay.

The Hon''ble Apex Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and Another, , had

held that where there is a delay of short period, the courts should adopt liberal approach, however, in cases of longer and substantial delay, strict

proof may be required. The relevant portion thereof reads thus:--

We have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation

with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The

idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period

within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the

delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time.

The expression ""sufficient cause"" employed in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 and similar other statues is elastic enough to enable

the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub serves the ends of justice. Although, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in dealing

with the applications for condonation of delay, this court has justifiably advocated adoption of a liberal approach in condoning the delay of short

duration and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate-Collector (L.A.) v. Katiji N. Balakrishnan V. M. Krishnamurthy and Vedabai v.

Shantaram Baburao Patil.

In the present case, there was delay of 7 days in filing the appeal. A copy of the prescription slip (Ex.A-1) had been produced by the landlord-

petitioner whereby he was advised bed-rest due to his ailment. In such circumstances, it could not be said that the landlord-petitioner was negligent

or careless in pursuing the litigation.

Accordingly, the order dated 18th October, 2001, passed by the appellate authority refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal is set

aside and the matter is remitted back to the appellate authority to adjudicate the same on merits in accordance with law. The present petition

stands disposed of.