Case Note & Summary
The case involved an eviction petition filed against the appellant on 4.2.2006, where notice was not personally served. The appellant entered appearance on 9.8.2006 and claimed he only became aware of the proceedings on that date. He filed an application for permission to defend, which was allowed by the Rent Controller on 4.12.2007. The respondent challenged this order in the High Court, which ruled that the date of knowledge should be deemed as 1.7.2006, asserting that the Rent Controller lacked jurisdiction to extend the 15-day period for contesting the eviction. The Supreme Court found that the High Court acted without evidence to support its inference regarding the date of knowledge. The Court emphasized that the appellant's statement regarding the date of knowledge should have been accepted, especially in light of the lack of personal service. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the Rent Controller's decision, requesting expedited disposal of the matter.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Date of Knowledge - Determination of Knowledge Date - East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 18-A(2) - The High Court incorrectly deemed the date of knowledge as 1.7.2006 despite the appellant's claim of knowledge on 9.8.2006, which was supported by the absence of personal service. The Supreme Court held that the Rent Controller's finding on the date of knowledge should not have been interfered with by the High Court (Paras 3-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in determining the date of knowledge for the eviction proceedings and in interfering with the Rent Controller's order.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the Rent Controller's order granting leave to contest the eviction proceedings.
Law Points
- Eviction proceedings
- Rent Controller jurisdiction
- Date of knowledge
- Substituted service
- Revisional jurisdiction
