DAYA RAM SHARMA Vs. BHARTOO MAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is a tenant under the respondent in a portion of the property situated at B-3/18-A, Model Town, Delhi. The agreed rent is Rs. 275.00 per month. The appellant filed an application for fixation of standard rent. The Additional Controller fixed the standard rent at Rs. 93-75 with effect from 1st March, 1977. On appeal by the landlord, the Rent Control Tribunal set aside the order of the Additional Controller and dismissed the appellant's application for fixation of standard rent. The tenant filed second appeal, under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). He also filed this application (C.M. No. 771 of 19-11) for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The certified copy of the Tribunal's order dated 10th October, 1980 was applied on 13th October, 1980 and it was ready for delivery on 1st November, 1980. The certified copy of the order of the Additional Controller was also applied on 13th October, 1980 and it was ready for delivery on 18th December, 1980. The appellant on 17th December, 198U filed the second appeal alongwith certified copy of the Tribunal's order dated 10th October, 1980. The registry raised various objections. One of the objections was that the certified copy of the trial court's order should be filed. It appears that the appellant took back the memorandum of appeal on 3rd March, 1981 and refiled-the same with certified copy of the order of the Additional Controller but without affixing court fee stamps on it. The appeal was again returned but refiled on 5th March, 1981 together with the certified copy of the order of the Additional Controller duly stamped.

(2.) The limitation for filing the second appeal under Section 39 of the Act is 60 days. After allowing the time spent by the appellant in obtaining the certified copy of the order of the Tribunal the last date of limitation for filing the appeal was 29th December, 1980. The High Court reopened after winter vacation on 3rd January, 1981. This appeal has been fixed in this Court and therefore the appeal is to be dealt with by this Court acting as a High Court and the same is governed by the normal procedure applicable to second appeals filed in this Court. Order 41 rule I of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that a memorandum of appeal shall be accompanied by a copy of the decree appealed from and copy of the judgment on which it is founded. Rule 2 (b) of Chapter I-A of Vol. V. of the Rules and Orders of the Punjab High Court as applicable to this Court is as under :

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant submits that Rule 2(b) of Chapter I-A of Vol. V. of the Rules and Orders of the Punjab High Court is not mandatory and therefore if the certified copy of the order of the Additional Controller was not filed, the appeal should not be deemed to be barred by time. No application for exemption from filing the copy of the order of Additional Controller was also filed by the appellant and there is however no ground to dispense with filing of the same. The counsel relies upon The State of Punjab and another v. Shamlal Murari and another, AIR 1976 S.G.I 177 but in that case Rule 3 Chapter 2-C Vol. 5 of the Rules required filing of three additional copies of the documents besides original Letters Patent Appeal and under those circumstances the Supreme Court held that if the rule for filing additional copies was not complied with, the appeal should not be dismissed as barred by time. This judgment of the Supreme Court, it seems is not applicable to the facts of the present case.