BHIKU Vs. PRITHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by Bhikufrom the judgment and decree of the learned III Additional DistrictJudge dated 3-12-1957 dismissing the appellant's appeal from thejudgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge 1st Class dated29-7-1957. The learned Additional District Judge has come to theconclusion that the appellant, who was a defendant in the trial Court,had undoubtedly been declared a Bhumidhar under section 13 of theDelhi Land reforms Act No. 8 of 1954, the requisite notification havingbeen issued on 23-6-1956. After so holding, the learned Judge ofthe Court of first appeal has proceeded to observe that the notificationhad no concern with the plaintiff's claim which was for the periodprior to the notification. The plaintiff, it may be pointed out, claimedto be a landlord who had filled a suit for the recovery of certain amounton account of rent and also for ejectment of the defendant from theagricultural land in question.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant has drawn my attentionto section 14 of the aforesaid Act which is in the following terms :-"14 (1) Every person declared as Bhumidhar under sub-section(1) of section 13, shall with effect from the commencement of thisAct, cease to pay rent of the land in respect of which the declarationhas been made to the proprietor or the landholder, as the casemay be.It is pointed out that after the declaration of a person as Bhumidhar, it is the date of the enforcement of the Act from which pointof time his liability to pay the rent ceases and not from the date of thenotification, as the learned Additional District Judge has erroneouslyheld. I find that the learned Additional District Judge has in supportof his conclusion made a reference to sub-section 2 of section 14 whichdeals with certain liabilities of persons other than sub-tenants deemedto be non- occupancy tenants under section 10 or 12. Unfortunately,the respondents are not represented before me and I have not hadthe advantage of knowing their case. In these circumstances, Ithink it would only be fit and proper to allow this appeal, set asidethe order of the learned Additional District Judge and send thecase back to the Court of the Additional District Judge for a freshdecision of the appeal in accordance with law and in the light ofthe observations made above.

(3.) There is one circumstance which I feel must be noticed. Inthis case, the lower Appellate Court decided the appeal before it on3-12-1957. The appellant applied for a certified copy of the judgmentof the trial Court on 17-12-1957 apparently for the purpose of filing asecond appeal in this Court. This copy was not made available tillafter 23-1-1959 ; the date of its attestation. After waiting for nearlyone year, the appellant presented the present appeal in this Court on13-12-58 with an unattested copy of the Judgment of the trial Court.On an objection being raised by the office of this Court, the appellantapplied for condonaticn of delay under section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. It, however, appears that the attention of the learned MotionJudge was not drawn to this application and no order was passedthereon. The office of this Court also apparently did not take anyfurther action in thi3 connection. On the facts mentioned above, I amfully satisfied that in this case the appellant has made out a ground forthe benefit of section 5, Limitation Act.