IQBAL KAUR Vs. GURDIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal filed against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated May 24, 1973. The Tribunal had dismissed the application of the applicant under Section 25 of the Rent Control Act upholding the similar order passed by the Rent Controller. A decree was passed against Shri Bhagwant Singh for non-payment of arrears of rent on November 10, 1972. The appellant is the wife of Shri Bhagwant Singh. While passing a decree for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent Shri Bhagwant Singh had prayed for time for one month for vacating and the learned Judge had granted the said time. After the said period of one month had expired on May 8, 1973 the appellant wife moved an application under Section 25 of the Act. The Rent Controller as well as the Tribunal found that the appellant was neither a sub-letee nor had an independent title to the suit premises.

(2.) The present appeal was filed on 28-5-1973. It was admitted ex parte, and an ex parte stay of dispossession was also granted by the court. The appellant had moved an application being C.M. No. 789/73 for exemption from filing the certified copies of the impugned order and the order of the lower court. This application was also allowed ex perte with the order "granted subject to just exceptions".

(3.) The counsel for the respondents has pointed out that the appeal was clearly barred by limitation. No notice was issued by the court before allowing the application for condonation of delay. If the opportunity was given to the respondent he could have pointed out that the appellant was negligent in filing the appeal late. There is merit in this submission. The impugned order of the Tribunal was pronounced on May 24, 1973. An application for certified copy was made on 25th May, 1973. The copy was ready on 13th June. 1973 but the High Court was closed at that time and, therefore, the appeal should have been filed on the first day of the re-opening. There is no doubt that in C.M. 789/73 this court had granted the application for exemption from filing the certified copy but two things must be noted, that is, that order was passed subject to just exceptions and secondly the order was passed ex parte. The just exception in the present case would mean that if the certified copy was not available at the time of the filing of the appeal, the certified copy should be filed within the statutory period of limitation. In the present case the certified copy of the impugned order was already ready on 13-6-1973. Although at the time of the filing of the present appeal, namely, 25th May, 1973 the copy was not ready, the certified copy could have been filed immediately on the re-opening of the court but this was not done. The certified copy was filed on 23-7-1973. The appeal is clearly barred by limitation and the same is dismissed.