T.P.S.MANN, J. - (1.) RAJPAL petitioner has filed the present revision under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the order passed by Rent Controller, Nawanshahr on 6.2.2007, whereby petition under Section 13-B of the Act filed by Gurdev Singh-landlord for ejectment/eviction of the petitioner from the shop was allowed.
(2.) AS is clear from the impugned judgment and other documents brought on record Gurdev Singh-landlord filed the petition under Section 13-B of the Act by describing him to be a specified landlord and thus, sought eviction of Rajpal-tenant in a summary manner. On 16.1.2006, learned Rent Controller summoned the tenant to appear before it within 15 days of the service thereof and to obtain the leave of the said Court to contest the application for eviction. The summons were received by Ajay Kumar, son of Rajpal-tenant, on 23.1.2006. Under these circumstances, Rajpal was required to move the learned Rent Controller on or before 7.2.2006 for leave to contest. However, according to him, he was informed by his son on 8.2.2006 about the Process Server having taken his signatures on some paper. He filed an application on 9.2.2006 before the Rent Controller under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the application for leave to contest. He pleaded in the said application that he himself was never served personally in the case and was told by his minor son Ajay Kumar on 3.2.2006 about the service of summons upon him. Said Ajay Kumar was minor, being born on 2.11.1989 and, thus, on 23.1.2006, he was 16 years and two months old. Therefore, service of summons on him was not a proper service. However, the trial Court rejected the application of the tenant for condonation of delay in applying for leave contest by holding that it was not maintainable. Besides, no sufficient cause was shown for the condonation. The trial Court also dismissed the application for leave to contest and therefore, went on to proceed with the decision of the ejectment petition and allowed the same vide impugned order. Learned counsel submitted that Section 5 of the Limitation Act would apply to the case in hand so as to enable the Rent Controller to countenance the claim for condonation in an appropriate case. The competent authority constituted under the Act is not 'Court' and the mere fact that such authority is deemed to be Court only for limited and specific purposes, cannot make it a Court for all or any other purpose and at any rate for the purpose of either making the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 attracted to proceedings before such competent authority or clothe such authority with any power to be exercised under the Limitation Act. The law is well settled that when a statute enacts that anything shall be deemed to be some other thing, the only meaning possible is that whereas the said thing is not in reality that something, the legislative enactment requires it to be treated as if it is so. Similarly, though full effect must be given to the legal fiction, it should not be extended beyond the purpose for which the fiction has been created and all the more, when the deeming clause itself confines, as in the present case, the creation of fiction for only a limited purpose as indicated therein. In Mukri Gopalan v. Cheppilat Puthanpuravil Aboobacker, 1995(2) RCR(Rent) 323 : AIR 1995 SC 2272 and Parkash H. Jain v. Ms Marie Fernandes, 2003(2) RCR(Rent) 559 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Rent Controller had no power to condone the delay in filing of the application for leave to contest. In Babu Ram v. Naresh Kumar, 2006(3) RCR(Civil) 789 : 2006(2) RCR(Rent) 249 (P&H), this Court, after relying upon the aforementioned decisions, held that the provisions of the Limitation Act in respect of an application for condoning the delay to file an application for leave to contest an application filed under Section 13-A(2) of the Act which was required to be filed within 15 days of the receipt of summons, were not applicable. Thus, it is held that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act were not applicable and the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was not maintainable. The application for leave to contest, having been filed after the expiry of the statutory period, was thus rightly dismissed. Even if the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted that the Rent Controller had the power to condone the delay in filing the application for leave to contest, this Court is of the view that no sufficient cause was shown by the petitioner in that regard.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that his son Ajay Kumar was only 16 years and two months of age on 23.1.2006 when summons were received by him on behalf of his father, i.e., the petitioner. Said Ajay Kumar, being minor, did not know the niceties of law and told about this fact to the petitioner only on 7.2.2006. There was, thus, sufficient ground for condonation of delay in filing the application for leave to contest. Learned counsel also referred to Section 18-A of the Act in contending that the summons were required to be served upon the tenant or his agent empowered to accept the service but the service on the son of the tenant was not proper.;