Yog Raj Chadha Vs. Sumitar Lal and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
a) the case debated on whether the order of condensation of delay could be challenged by way of revision - it was ruled that under section 115 of the civil procedure code, 1908, the order condoning the delay, which was in compliance with the order was not subject to challenge by resorting to revision petitionb) in the instant matter, in respect of the order of condensation of delay in depositing the rent, it was ruled that the said order of condensation would not be challenged by way of revision, as the evidence on record clearly showed that there was no willful intention on the part of tenant, to delay in depositing the rentc) in the instant case that discussed the powers of rent control tribunal under section 38(3) of the delhi rent control act, 1958, it was held that the provision included power to enlarge the time fixed for compliance of the order of the court - accordingly, the rent controller did have the jurisdiction to extend the time under section 148 of the civil procedure code, 1908 - - (2) brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as under :2.2.an order of eviction was passed under section 14(l)(k) and the petitioner was directed to stop the misuse of the premises within six months and in case of failure to do so, to suffer eviction order on 19th september, 1975 by learned additional rent controller. the tenant shall also be liable to pay his share of the penalties for condensation of the breaches for the future period if any, which may be imposed by the l & do but in case the l & do decides not to condone the breaches any further, the tenant shall stop the misuse of the premises within one month but in case of the failure to stop the misuse the eviction order on the ground covered by clause (k) shall be deemed to have been passed. 314/ -but the appellant avoided to acceptation one or the other ground and finally asked him as well as other tenants to come on 16th november, 1978. on 16th november, 1978 he finally refused to accept the said sum of rs.s.n. kapoor, j.(1) this petition under article 227 has been filed against an order of the learned rent control tribunal dated 28th august, 1980, condoning the delay in payment of rs. 314.00 in terms of order dated 16th october, 1978 under section 14(l)(k) of the delhi rent control act passed by learned rent control tribunal. (2) brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as under : 2.2.an order of eviction was passed under section 14(l)(k) and the petitioner was directed to stop the misuse of the premises within six months and in case of failure to do so, to suffer eviction order on 19th september, 1975 by learned additional rent controller.2.3.anappeal was filed against the aforesaid order. in appeal, the following operative order was passed : '.....hence, i direct the appellant tenantu/section 14(11) to pay to the landlord or deposit in the court of the additional controller the amount of rs. 314.00 within one month as the amount of penalty as aforesaid and in case he fails to deposit the said amount within the said period, then the appellant shall stop the misuse of the premises within the said period. the tenant shall also be liable to pay his share of the penalties for condensation of the breaches for the future period if any, which may be imposed by the l & do but in case the l & do decides not to condone the breaches any further, the tenant shall stop the misuse of the premises within one month but in case of the failure to stop the misuse the eviction order on the ground covered by clause (k) shall be deemed to have been passed. the parties are left to bear their own costs.'october16,1978 sd/- rent control tribunal delhi.(3) according to the case of the petitioner, the respondent did not deposit the amount in court in compliance of the order dated 16th october, 1978. consequently, eviction order shall be deemed to have been passed. 3.2.an application vide annexure-b was made before the learned rent control tribunal under section 151 by the respondent on 6th december, 1978 for condoning the delay in depositing rs. 314.00 in terms of the order dated 16th october, 1978. according to the application, the appellant went to the respondent on three or four occasions along with other tenants to pay him a sum of rs. 314/ - but the appellant avoided to acceptation one or the other ground and finally asked him as well as other tenants to come on 16th november, 1978. on 16th november, 1978 he finally refused to accept the said sum of rs. 314.00 . thereafter on 16th november, 1978 a sum of rs. 314.00 was sent by money-order which was received/ refused by the respondent. the appellant had deposited a sum of rs. 314.00 in the court of addl. rent controller, delhi on 6th december, 1978.3.3.this application for condoning the delay was obviously contested on 28th august, 1980 and it was decided by order dated 28th august, 1980. the learned rent control tribunal found that the money-order coupon certainly showed that on the last date (16th november, 1978) the amount was sent by money-order showing the intention of the appellant to pay the amount ordered in the trial court. there was no intention to commit any willful or contumacious default and the amount had subsequently been deposited. the delay was condoned on payment of rs. 50.00 as cost.(4) i have gone through the record. section 37 of the delhi rent control act (hereinafter called the drc act for short) provided procedure to be followed by the controller to ensure that no person will suffer any order without having a reasonable opportunity of being heard. sub-section (3) of section 38 provides that the tribunal shall have all the powers vested in a court under the code of civil procedure, 1908 (act5 of 1908). this indicated that the tribunal has all the powers of a civil court. (5) section 148 of the cp.c. refers to enlargement of time and it reads asunder: 'enlargement of time: 148. where any period is fixed or granted by the court for the doing of any act prescribed or allowed by this code, the court may, in its discretion, from time to time, enlarge such period, even though the period originally fixed or granted may have expired.'(6) a bare reading would indicate that the tribunal, which have been equated with the court in matters of powers to be exercised by the tribunal, could in its discretion, from time to time, enlarge any period fixed or granted by the court for doing of any act, even though the period originally fixed or granted might have expired. thereforee, learned rent control tribunal did have the jurisdiction to extend the time. (7) as regards the propriety of the order, it is apparent from the impugned order and the finding which could not be challenged here in this revision, it is highly probable that the landlord in order to evict the tenant firstly avoided to receive the amount and thereafter finally refused on 16th november, 1978 to receive the amount and that led to sending the amount by money-order. the amount had been deposited on 6th december, 1978. (8) one of the objections taken in the petition was that the petitioner has not stopped the misuser. in reply to the application for condoning the delay on 14th november, 1979 no such plea was taken and thereforee, obviously no order could be passed by learned addl. rent control tribunal. (9) for the foregoing reasons i do not find any force in this revision petition and it is dismissed accordingly. (10) a copy of this order be sent to the learned trial court concerned through the learned rent control tribunal for information and to proceed further in this matter in accordance with law.