SHANTI DEVI Vs. BHAN RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is by the owner landlady of certain premises in Chawri Bazar, Delhi.

(2.) The landlady filed a suit for possession against legal representatives of her tenant. Kadar Nath was the tenant. He died leaving behind his daughter-in-law and grand children (some of them minors), who are the defendants, as his legal heirs. The wife of Kedar Nath and' his son Nathu Ram predeceased him. He had no other legal heir. The suit was filed on the basis that the defendants could not inherit the tenancy as Kedar Nath was a statutory tenant. The suit which was filed on 2-3-1976 was dismissed on 8-10-1982 First appeal against the judgment and decree was filed on 2-6-1.973, almost two months after the period of limitation. The appeal was dismissed being barred by limitation by the impugned order. I will note that earlier also the petitioner had filed a suit against the respondents which was dismissed as tar back as in 1975 wherein the court held that the respondents were the tenants of the petitioner in respect of the premises in question. The appeal filed by the petitioner against that judgment was also dismissed.

(3.) Mr. Chibber stales that in the course of the proceedings before the trial Court on a certain interlocutory order the landlady filed a petition under Art, 227 of the Constitution in this Court. The impugned order then was that the plaintiff was not given opportunity to cross-examine the defendants sole witness. Earlier stay of further proceedings was granted by this Court hut it was vacated on 8-9-1982. Mr. Chibber says that when that petition was pending in this Court the landlady was under the impression that limitation will not run till the petition was disposed of. That petition was ultimately dismissed on 30-1 1-1982. It was only thereafter that an application for grant of certified copy of the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court was made. He. therefore, says that there was sifficient cause for condoning the delay and the lower appellate Court was in error in dismissing the appeal as barred by limitaion.