Sabina, J. - (1.) PETITIONERS have filed this petition challenging the order dated 7.9.2013 whereby application under Section 18A of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 ('Act' for short) moved by the petitioners for grant of leave to contest the eviction petition under Section 13(B) of the Act moved by respondent Jaswinder Singh, was dismissed and in consequence thereto their ejectment from the tenanted premises was ordered. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the application had been moved within limitation. In fact, service on the petitioners was effected on 9.8.2012. The Process Server with a view to help the landlord had changed the date of service of summons to 8.8.2012.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that application moved by the petitioners for leave to contest the application had been filed after expiry of period of limitation. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on Om Parkash v. Ashwani Kumar Bassi', 2010 (4) Civil Court Cases 0137, wherein it was held as under: - - Section 13B is a power given to a Non -Resident Indian owner of a building to obtain immediate possession of a residential building or scheduled building when required for his or her use or for the use of any one ordinarily living with and dependent on him or her. The right has been limited to one application only during the life time of the owner. Section 18A(2) of the aforesaid Act provides that after an application under Section 13B is received, the Controller shall issue summons for service on the tenant in the form specified in Schedule II. The said form indicates that within 15 days of service of the summons the tenant is required to appear before the Controller and apply for leave to contest the same. There is no specific provision to vest the Rent Controller with authority to extend the time for making of such affidavit and the application. The Rent Controller being a creature of statute can only act in terms of the powers vested in him by statute and cannot, therefore, entertain an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay since the statute does not vest him with such power. Respondent had filed petition under Section 13B of the Act seeking ejectment of the petitioners from the tenanted premises. Notice of the application was issued to the petitioners.
(3.) CASE of the respondent was that his father had purchased the demised premises vide sale deed dated 21.8.1974 and had rented out the same to the petitioners on a monthly rent of Rs. 3500/ - in the year 1998. Father of the respondent expired on 30.9.2001. Case of the respondent further was that he was a nonresident Indian and was residing in Spain and had now returned back to India and wanted to permanently reside in the house in question. Hence, the ejectment of the petitioners was sought from the premises in question.;