AUTOCRAT TOURS Vs. ARJAN DEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this order, two applications, one of the respondent which is C.M.. 784/80 and the other filed by the appellant (G.M. 1238/80) are being decided.

(2.) The appellant is a tenant of premises bearing No. 16, Todar Mal Lane, New Delhi at plot No. 58, Block 205-G New Delhi, Arjun Dev, respondent is the owner of the same. The respondent brought a petition for eviction of the appellant on the ground of non-payment of rent and sub-letting. That petition was dismissed on 15th February, 1975 by Shri V.S. Aggarwal, Additional Rent Controller. The respondent went in appeal which was accepted by the Rent Control Tribunal and eviction of the appellant was directed on both grounds on September 30, 1977. The appellant filed appeal (SAO No. 204/77). Along with the Memorandum of appeal the appellant filed an application for stay of eviction proceedings during the pendency of the appeal. The appellant did not file certified copies of the orders of the Rent Control Tribunal as well as the Additional Rent Controller. He filed an application (G.M. 1834/77) to the effect that he applied for obtaining certified copies of the judgment of the Rent Control Tribunal as well as the Additional Rent Controller but that the same were not ready and were not supplied to him, that he also applied for obtaining certified copies of the grounds of appeal taken before the lower appellate court) that the same was also not supplied, that he was filing the uncertified copies of the aforesaid judgments and grounds of appeal and that in the interest of justice filing of the certified copies be dispensed with for the time being. On that application it was ordered on 14th October, 1977 that certified copies be filed within time. The appeal was admitted on the same day and eviction of the appellant was stayed.

(3.) The appellant did not file the certified copies. Therefore, the respondent filed on 14th March, 1980 an application (C.M. 784/80). In that application, the respondent stated that on inspection of file on March 13, 1980 it was found that certified copies of the aforesaid were not filed, that therefore the appeal was incompetent and liable to be dismissed on the ground alone and that in the alternative, the said appeal was liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation. A notice of that application was directed to be served upon the appellant. On March 28, 1980 appearance was put in by Ajay Kapur on behalf of the appellant and a request was made that time be given for filing the reply. Two weaks time was given for filing the reply and next date was April 1 7, 1980, on which date another adjournment was sought and time upto 24th April, 1980 was fixed for filing the reply. Besides filing the reply, the appellant filed an application (G.M. 1238/80) under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condoning the delay in filing the certified copies and treating the appeal is having been filed within period of limitation. The aforesaid application is contested by the respondent. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.