IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3280 OF 2010 [Arising out of SLP(C) No.14957/2009]

PARAMJIT SINGH .......APPELLANT  

Versus

HARNEK SINGH .....RESPONDENT

O R D E R

Leave granted.  Heard the parties.

2. An eviction petition was filed against the  

appellant on 4.2.2006.  Notice was issued to appellant, but  

was not personally served.  The appellant-tenant entered  

appearance on 9.8.2006. On 24.8.2006, the appellant-tenant  

filed an application for permission to defend the eviction  

proceeding wherein he specifically alleged that he obtained  

knowledge  of  the  proceedings  only  on  9.8.2006.   On  the  

basis of the said averment, the application seeking leave  

to defend the case was filed within the period of 15 days  

of date of knowledge prescribed under Section 18-A(2) read  

with Schedule II of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction  

Act, 1949 ('Act' for short).  The Rent Controller allowed  

the application seeking leave to contest the proceedings by  

his order dated 4.12.2007.  The respondent filed a revision  

petition challenging  the  said order.  The High Court has  

.....2.

- 2 -

allowed the said revision petition filed by the respondent  

holding that  the  date of knowledge should be deemed to be  

1.7.2006 and not 9.8.2006.  It is also held that the Rent  

Controller has no jurisdiction to extend the period of 15  

days even if sufficient cause was shown.  The said order is  

challenged in this appeal by special leave.   

3. It  is  not  in  dispute  that  no  notice  was  

personally served upon the appellant-tenant. The appellant-

tenant in the application seeking leave specifically stated  

that he got notice only on 9.8.2006.  There was no specific  

material to controvert the claim of the appellant-tenant  

that the notice was served on 9.8.2006. The Rent Controller  

rightly, therefore, proceeded on the basis that the date of  

knowledge  was  9.8.2006.   But  the  High  Court,  acting  on  

inferences  without  any  evidence  to  support  it,  has  

proceeded on the basis that the notice should be deemed to  

have  been  served  on  1.7.2006  by  way  of  'munadi'  

(substituted service).   

4. We  are  of  the  view  that  this  was  wholly  

unjustified.  When  the  appellant-tenant  had  made  a  

categorical statement that he obtained knowledge only on  

9.8.2006, in the absence of personal service and in the

absence of any satisfactory  

......3.

- 3 -

material to show that he had previous notice, the Court  

ought to have accepted  the date of knowledge as 9.8.2006.  

At  all  events,  the  High  Court,  exercising  revisional  

jurisdiction, ought not to have interfered with the finding  

recorded by the trial Court that the date of knowledge was  

9.8.2006.

5. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside  

the order of the High Court and restore the order of the  

Rent Controller granting leave to contest.  Having regard  

to  the  facts  and  circumstances,  we  request  the  Rent  

Controller to dispose of the matter expeditiously.

  .........................J.          ( R.V. RAVEENDRAN )

New Delhi;         .........................J. April 09, 2010.                  ( R.M. LODHA )