RIASAT ALI Vs. SAYEEDA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Tenant, Riasat Ali had filed an Appeal against the Order dated 5.6.1999 of the Additional Rent Controller whereby his objections have been dismissed. The Appeal was filed before the Additional Rent Control Tribunal (ARCT) on 22.7.1999. It was rejected on the grounds of it being barred by limitation, and this has been assailed before me. Mr. V.K. Shali, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has reiterated the contentions articulated in the Petition. Firstly, it is his submission that the Tribunal erred in holding that the period of limitation started on 5/06/1999. To this extent he is correct. The day on which the impugned order is passed is undoubtedly to be excluded. Hence the first day to be counted for computing the period within which the appeal ought to have been filed was 6/06/1999. Mr. Shali has contended that since 6/06/1999 was a Sunday and the Courts were closed from 7th June to 30th June (both days included) for the summer vacation, the period of limitation could not be held to have commenced to run till the first day of the Post-summer vacation session. This argument is predicated on Mr. Shali's understanding of Section 9 of the Limitation Act. Although it has erroneously been mentioned that the Courts resumed work on 2/07/1999,1 shall take the argument as having been modified to refer to 1/07/1999, instead of 2/07/1999. Unfortunately, the ARCT has also failed to notice this fact and has erroneously stated that the Courts re-opened on 3.7.1999. Finally, it is contended by Mr. V.K. Shali, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the delay, if any, is of a few days and ought to have been condoned by the ARCT, in the circumstances of the case.

(2.) Mr. S.K. Bhalla, Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents has emphasised that the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act did not a company the appeal, as was required by law. He has also highlighted that the application has not been supported by the affidavit of the Counsel who purportedly gave the wrong advice to the Appellant, and even more significantly, even the name of the Counsel has not been disclosed. He has further relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim and Others, AIR 1984 SC 38 where it was observed that "a mere wrong decision without anything more is not enough to attract the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited 'to seeing that an inferior Court or Tribunal function within the limits of its authority', and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record much less an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or Tribunal. It will not review or re-weigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior court or tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of law in the decision."

(3.) In Bansi Dhar and another v. Firm Bajrang Lal Mahabir Pershad and Others, AIR 1976 Delhi 107, which indubitably appears to apply on all fours to the case at hand. The Learned Judge had held that the "party is as of right entitled to the exclusion of the time under Section 12 ......Thus, were the impugned order was passed on the last working day before vacation and the application for a certified copy was filed on the day the Court reopened, the period of vacation cannot be excluded as time requisite for obtaining the certified copy." It will also be relevant to mention that the Learned Judge refused to condone the delay because of Counsel's insistence that the Appellant was entitled to exclude the vacation period. I am in respectful agreement with his judgment in its entirety.