Rent Controller Has No Power To Condone Delay In Filing Leave To Defend Under Section 13-B Rent Act: Punjab and Haryana High Court

"Sections 13-B and 18-A of 1949 Act Are a Complete Code in Themselves, Excluding Application of Section 5 of Limitation Act,"  - Punjab and Haryana High Court decisively ruling that the Rent Controller lacks jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing an application for leave to defend under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. Justice Harkesh Manuja emphasized that the statutory period of 15 days prescribed under Section 18-A must be strictly adhered to, setting a critical precedent in rent control jurisprudence involving NRIs.

The case arose when respondent-landlord, Parneet Singh Sohi, an American passport holder, filed an eviction petition under Section 13-B against Harpreet Singh regarding a property in Chandigarh. The landlord asserted that the premises were required for his personal use during visits to India. The tenant, Harpreet Singh, failed to timely file the application for leave to defend and later sought condonation of a 31-day delay, citing miscommunication with his counsel.

The Rent Controller rejected the application, leading to the acceptance of the eviction petition. Harpreet Singh then filed a revision petition before the High Court challenging the order.

The key issue before the Court was whether the Rent Controller had the power to condone the delay in filing an application for leave to defend beyond the 15-day statutory limit prescribed under Section 18-A of the 1949 Act.

Justice Harkesh Manuja meticulously analyzed Sections 13-B and 18-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, holding that: “Sections 13-B & 18-A of 1949 Act provide for unique and extraordinary right to recover immediate possession… and the same does not admit the application of any provision of the Limitation Act.”

The Court stressed that the Rent Controller is a statutory authority and can exercise only such powers as conferred by the statute. Since there is no provision empowering the Controller to condone the delay, the invocation of Section 5 of the Limitation Act was held inapplicable.

The Court further emphasized: "Procedure under Section 18-A of the Act read with the Form prescribed under Schedule II, which contains a specific period of limitation, has overriding effect on all other provisions of this Act or any other law for the time being in force."

Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s decision in Om Parkash v. Ashwani Kumar Bassi (2010 AIR (SC) 3791), where it was categorically held that: "The Rent Controller being a creature of statute cannot entertain an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay."

Justice Manuja distinguished prior precedents cited by the petitioner like Roop Kishore Sharma v. Smt. Bachni Devi and Paramjit Kaur v. Gurcharan Singh Walia, clarifying that liberal approaches for condonation of delay apply only when statutory scheme permits, which is not the case under Section 13-B read with Section 18-A.

The Court found that the tenant had been duly served summons in the statutory form, and the tenant’s failure to act within 15 days was fatal: “No merit can be found in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner-tenant that he was never served with any notice of the eviction petition in the prescribed Form/Schedule-II."

Ultimately, the High Court upheld the Rent Controller’s eviction order and dismissed the revision petition, reaffirming: "The Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to condone delay; non-filing within time mandates passing of eviction order."

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has firmly established that under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, the 15-day period for seeking leave to defend is mandatory and non-extendable. This ruling reiterates that Rent Controllers must adhere strictly to statutory timelines in NRI eviction petitions, reinforcing speedy adjudication objectives embedded in the law.

Date of Decision: 04 April 2025