Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Kharaiti Lal v. Gurjit Singh & Anr - CR-1450-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 11564 (30 November 2006)

C.R. No.1450 of 2005. {1}


Date of decision : 1.12.2006.

Kharaiti Lal ........Petitioner


Gurjit Singh and another .......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA.
Present : Mr.A.K.Kalsy, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for the respondents.

* * *



The present revision petition is against the order dated 16.12.2004, passed by the learned Rent Controller, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner holding that the application for leave to contest is beyond the period of limitation.

The question whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable in respect of the proceedings under the Rent Act, has been examined by this Court in "2006(2) RLR-435, Babu Ram versus Naresh Kumar". It has been held that the Rent Controller has no power to condone delay in filing the application for leave to contest as the Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable to the rent proceedings. The said judgment has been rendered relying upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment "2003 (8) SCC-431 Parkash H.Jain versus Marie Friends".

This Court held to the following effect - "The applicability of the provisions of the Act, therefore, is to be judged not from the terms of the Limitation Act, but by adverting to the provisions of the Act C.R. No.1450 of 2005. {2}

relating to filing of a petition under Section 13-A of the Act for seeking immediate possession of a `residential' or `scheduled building' for which a right accrues to certain persons. It is to be seen by adverting to the provisions and where the procedure provided therein is a complete Code in itself, it does not then admit the application of the provisions of the Limitation Act mentioned in Section 29 (2) thereof. A reference to the provisions of Sections 13-A and 18-A of the Act would show that the procedure provided regarding right to recover immediate possession of `residential' or `scheduled building', is a complete code by itself and the same does not admit the application of any provision of the Limitation Act mentioned in Section 29 (2) thereof. It is also appropriate to note that in terms of Section 18-B of the Act, it is provided that Section 18-A or any rule made for the purpose thereof, shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained elsewhere in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force. This also would exclude the applicability of the Limitation Act. The procedure prescribed for seeking recovery of immediate possession of `residential' or `scheduled building' in terms of Section 13-A of the Act, would not admit the applicability of the provisions of the Limitation Act."

In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

Dismissed in limine.


December 1, 2006 JUDGE


C.R. No.1450 of 2005. {3}


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.