PERMOD KOHLI, J. - (1.) LEGALITY and validity of order dated 2.5.2007 passed by the Rent Controller, Nakodar is in question in the present Revision filed under Section 18 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The facts of the case may be briefly noticed. Bhagat Ram-respondent landlord, claiming to be an NRI residing in England for the last 40 years and now residing with his son-Ram Lal at Mohalla Arjan Nagar, Nakodar filed a petition under Section 13-B of the Act for eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the demised house. The petitioner-tenant appeared through her counsel on 28.2.2007 when the case was adjourned to 10.3.2007 for filing the reply by her. On the date fixed i.e. 10.3.2007, respondent-landlord filed an application for striking off the defence of the petitioner-tenant for want of application seeking leave to contest the petition. On the same date, the petitioner-tenant filed an application for seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and an application for leave to contest the main petition. Both the said applications were taken up for consideration by the Rent Controller. Vide the impugned order, the Rent Controller allowed the application of the respondent-landlord for striking off the defence of the petitioner-tenant and simultaneously dismissed the application of the petitioner-tenant refusing to condone the delay in preferring an application for leave to defend the eviction petition, and consequently, the application for leave to defend was also dismissed.
(2.) THE Rent Controller was confronted with three reported judgments of this Court, on the question of condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in proceedings before the Rent Controller, particularly, in condoning the delay in filing an application for seeking leave to defend the eviction petition. In a judgment as S. Manohar Singh v. S. Aridaman Singh Dhillon, 2002(2) RCR(Rent) 652 : (2003-1)133 Punjab Law Reporter 231, an Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court has held in favour of applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation the delay in making an application for leave to defend. In the other two rulings reported as Amarjit Singh Walia v. Harbans Singh, 2004(2) RCR(Rent) 1 : (2004-3)138 PLR 141 and Babu Ram v. Naresh Kumar, 2006(3) RCR(Civil) 789 : 2006(2) RCR(Rent) 249 : (2006-3)144 PLR 529, two Hon'ble Judges of this Court sitting singly took a contrary view and held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act has no application and cannot be invoked to condone the delay in filing application for leave to contest the eviction petition as prescribed under Sections 13-A and 18-A of the Act. The Rent Controller applied the latest judgments and opined in favour of the non-applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act and consequently, dismissed the application for condonation of delay as also application for leave to contest the eviction petition. The Rent Controller also made certain observations on the merit of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and recorded that the petitioner-tenant's contention of remaining ill cannot be accepted, in view of the fact that she had appeared through counsel on 28.2.2007. Two questions arise in the present case : (1) As to which of the two views expressed by this Court regarding applicability and non-applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act in eviction proceedings before the Rent Controller in filing application for leave to contest, is the correct and acceptable view ? and (2) as to whether the observations made by the Rent Controller on the merit of application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act are legal and correct and what is its effect in the event Section 5 of the Limitation Act is found applicable to the proceedings before the Rent Controller ? I take this opportunity to refer to two sets of the judgments of this Court, including the judgments relied upon in formulation of the opinions by three co-ordinate Benches of this Court.
(3.) IN the case of S. Manohar Singh (supra), Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukri Gopalan v. Cheppilat Puthanpurayil Aboobacker, 1995(2) RCR(Rent) 323 : AIR 1995 Supreme Court 2272 wherein following observations have been made : "15. After repealing of Indian Limitation Act, 1908 and its replacement by the present Limitation Act of 1963 a fundamental change was made in Section 29(2). The present Section 29(2) as already extracted earlier clearly indicates that once the requisite conditions for its applicability to given proceedings under special or local law are attracted the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24, both inclusive would get attracted which obviously would bring in Section 5 which also shall apply to such proceedings unless applicability of any of the aforesaid Sections of the Limitation Act is expressly excluded by such special or local law. By this charge it is not necessary to expressly state in a special law that the provisions contained in Section 5 of the Limitation Act shall apply to the determination of the periods under it. By the general provision contained in Section 29(2) this provision is made applicable to the periods prescribed under the special laws. An express mention in the special law is necessary only for any exclusion. It is on this basis that when the new Rent Act was passed in 1965 the provision contained in old Section 31 was omitted. It becomes therefore apparent that on a conjoint reading of Section 29(2) of Limitation Act of 1963 and Section 18 of the Rent Act of 1965, provisions of Section 5 would automatically get attracted to those proceedings, as there is nothing in the Rent Act of 1965 expressly excluding the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to appeals under Section 18 of the Rent Act." ;