JUDGMENT

RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. (ORAL) –

1. This is tenant’s revision petition challenging the order dated 19.01.2013 of the Rent Controller, Chandigarh whereby the application of the petitioner for grant of leave to defend a petition filed under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Rent Act’) by the respondent, who claims himself to be an NRI landlord, has been dismissed on the ground that such an application was filed beyond the period of 15 days as prescribed in the statutory Rules.

2. It is not in dispute that under the Rent Act, a special procedure under Section 18-A has been provided for granting leave to contest a petition filed under the provisions of Section 13-B of the Rent Act and such an application for grant of leave to defend has to be filed within 15 days from the date of service effected upon the tenant.

3. It is further not in dispute that in the instant case, the petitioner had filed the application for grant of leave to defend after a delay of two days on expiry of the 15 days, as provided under the Rules.

4. It is further not disputed that the procedure under Section 18-A of the Rent Act and the Rules framed thereunder have been subjected to interpretation of this Court in various judgments and it has been settled that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing such an application for grant of leave to defend. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended before this Court that Hon’ble the Supreme Court, in the case of ‘Kimti Lal v. Jaswinder Kaur (N.R.I.)’ 2010(1) LAR 253, has granted leave to the tenant to contest the eviction petition filed by the NRI landlord, which was barred by time.

5. I have perused the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court. The said judgment was passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the facts and circumstances of that case only and no ratio of law was settled.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord has cited before this Court another judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in ‘Om Parkash v. Ashwani Kumar Bassi’ AIR 2010 SC 3791, wherein it has been held that the Rent Controller can only act in terms of the powers vested in him by the Statute and cannot entertain an application which does not vest him with such powers.

7. It is again not in dispute that under the Rent Act, no such power has been vested with the Rent Controller to condone the delay.

8. In view thereof, I find no merit in this revision petition.

9. Dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

********