J.V Gupta, J.:— This petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller, Amritsar, dated 3rd of September, 1987, whereby the tenant was allowed to contest the petition filed by the landlord under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Kent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’)
2. The landlord, Gian Singh Gandhi, retired on 30th June, 1987. He filed the ejectment application under section 13-A of the Act on 20th of July, 1987. Dasti summons were served on the tenant on 25th of July, 1987, whereas summons through registered post were served on 29th of July, 1987. The tenant filed the application dated 11th of August, 1987, to seek permission to contest the ejectment application inter alia on the ground that the demised premises were not a residential building and hence application under Section 13-A of the Act was not maintainable. It was alleged on behalf of the landlord that the said application has not been filed within fifteen days of the service of the notice and, therefore, it was barred by time and no leave to contest the petition could be granted.
3. The learned Rent Controller was of the opinion that since in this case the status of the building has been denied by the tenant, it was a fit case for granting the necessary permission to contest. As regards the limitation, he found that “even otherwise the delay in filing of the application is only of two days which is condonable.” Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord has filed this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the land lord-petitioner submitted that since the notice was served on the tenant on 25th of July, 1987, the application filed on 11th of August, 1987, was barred by time as it was beyond the period of fifteen days. He further contended that the question of condonation did not arise as no such application was moved by the tenant. Otherwise also there’ was no provision for condoning the delay of such application. In support of his contention, he referred to Shri Gurditta Mal v. Shri Bal Sarup . 1980 2 R.L.R 101., Savitri Devi… v. Nathu Ram…. . 1982 2 R.L.R 294., Onkar Singh… v. Shanti Devi…. . 1981 1 R.L.R 732. and Shrimati Kamal Bhandari v. Brig. Shamsher Singh Malhotra . 1981 2 R.L.R 541.. All these judgments have been delivered by the Delhi High Court. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the tenant-respondent submitted that in Shri Gurditta Mal's case (supra), the Delhi High Court itself condoned the delay in paras No. 23 and 28 thereof. Moreover, registered notice was served on the tenant on 29th of July, 1987, and the application was within time from that date.
5. During the pendency of this petition, the landlord moved a civil miscelloneous application No. 6754-CII of 1988 for bringing on record the subsequent events. According to the application, another tenant who was similarly situated named Jaimal Singh was also allowed to contest the application and after the parties were allowed to lead evidence, eviction order was passed against him. The copy of the judgment of the Rent Controller dated 28-10-1988 has been filed in this Court. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of the said judgment, it will be futile to allow the present tenant to contest the ejectment application.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this petition. Dasti summons were served on 25-7-1987 whereas the application for permission to contest was filed on 11-8-1987. It was delayed by two days. Admittedly, notice by registered post was served on 29th of July, 1987. From that date, the application was within time. The learned Rent Controller condoned the delay of two days and allowed the tenant to contest the petition. In these circumstances, I do no not find any illegality in the impugned order as to be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction. As regards the judgments referred to above, the Delhi High Court itself as observed earlier has condoned the delay in such like situation.
7. As regards the order of the Rent Controller dated 28-10-1988, the petitioner will be well advised to file the copy of the said order before the Rent Controller in order to show that in similar situation, the plea of the tenant was negatived. Consequently, this petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. Since it was an application under Section 13-A of the Act, it is directed that the same be tried summarily as provided under the Act and be disposed of expeditiously within three months. The parties have been directed to appear before the Rent Controller on 5th of January, 1989. The records of the case be sent back forthwith.
R.M.S
Petition dismissed.