SYAMALAKUMARI Vs. VIJAYALAKSHMI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two legal questions arise for decision in this revision. First, whether it is obligatory that an appeal preferred under S.18 of Act 2 of 1965 should be accompanied a certified copy of the impugned order passed by the Rent Control Court. Second, whether the carbon copy of the order issued to a party in terms of R.239(3) of the Civil Rules of Practice qualifies as a certified copy for the purposes of appeal.

(2.) In the instant case, the rent control appeal was preferred by one Rajendran, the original tenant (the predecessor in interest of the revision petitioners) on the strength of a carbon copy issued to him. A separate petition was also filed seeking reception of the appeal without certified copy and undertaking to produce the certified copy as and when the same is received. The tenant's advocate received the certified copy on 22/05/2009 and produced the same before the Rent Control Appellate Authority with a memo on 05/06/2009. In the meanwhile, the original tenant Sri. Rajendran (the appellant) passed away on 22/04/2009. It appears that information regarding Rajendran's demise was not intimated to the counsel. The learned Appellate Authority by its order dated 07/07/2009 rejected the appeal on the ground that the appeal filed on the basis of the carbon copy more than 30 days after the receipt of the same, was barred by limitation. According to the revision petitioners, they did not have information about the rejection of the appeal immediately. They got information much later through a friend of Rajendran and thereafter only they could approach an advocate for advice. It is accordingly that the present revision is filed challenging the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority rejecting the appeal on the ground of limitation.

(3.) Various grounds are raised in this revision. It is urged that the original tenant filed appeal on the strength of the carbon copy of the impugned order only because urgent orders were necessary for stay of the execution proceedings which had been initiated in the meanwhile. It is urged that it is obligatory that all appeals should be accompanied by certified copy of the order appealed against and that a separate application was filed in the appeal seeking time for production of the certified copy. It is urged that as a matter of fact, certified copy of the order was produced before the Appellate Authority on 05/06/2009 and if the period of limitation was calculated on the basis of that certified copy the appeal would have been well within the period of limitation (30 days). It is urged that in view of the special petition filed by the tenant seeking time for production of certified copy, the learned Appellate Authority should have calculated the period of limitation on the basis of the certified copy produced though subsequently. It is urged that if the appeal filed on the strength of the carbon copy was found to be barred by limitation, such a finding should have been entered at the earliest opportunity and the appellant tenant should have been given time to cure the defect if necessary by filing a petition for condonation of delay. The said course having not been adopted, prejudice has been occasioned to the present tenants. It is urged that at the time of rejection of the appeal the original tenant was dead and gone. As the legal representatives of the original tenant the revision petitioners had a right to get themselves impleaded as additional appellants they could not exercise that right as the appeal was rejected even before the expiry of three months from the date of death of the original tenant.