VENKITASWAMI CHETTIAR Vs. INDIRA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The salient facts are:- On 12-10-1972 the Rent Control Court passed an eviction order against the C. R. petitioners under S.11(2)(b) of the Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter, the Act) on the ground of arrears of rent. The tenants who are the Civil Revision Petitioners did not avail of S.11(2)(c) of the Act to get the said order vacated by deposit of the amounts mentioned therein. The landlord respondent took out execution of the order. On 20-12-1974 the Executing Court ordered to effect delivery of possession on 2-1-1975. The tenants filed R. C. R. P. 1 of 1975 against that order. The Revisional Court dismissed it on 15-6-1976. Thereafter, the tenants preferred R. C. A. 15 of 1977 from the eviction order of 12-10-1972. The appellate authority rejected it as one filed out of time. The tenants took up the matter in R. C. R. P. 91 of 1977 before the Revisional Court. That court dismissed this revision on 28-6-1978. Within a month thereof the tenants filed I. A. 2093 of 1978 in purported compliance of S.11(2)(c) depositing the amounts mentioned therein and sought to have the eviction order vacated. The Rent Control Court, the appellate authority and the Revisional Court held that there has been no compliance with S.11(2)(c). Hence this C. R. P. under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

(2.) In Kurian v. Saramma Chacko ( 1964 KLT 1 ) a Full Bench of this Court said that S.11(2)(c) (then: S.11(2)(b)) would be attracted even when the deposit contemplated by that provision is made within the time mentioned therein, reckoning such time from the date of the appellate and revisional orders passed in appeal and revision preferred against the eviction order. The Full Bench construing the expression the 'order of the Rent Control Court' said that the legislative intent is that that expression will include orders of the appellate authority and revisional court. This decision is relied on by the Revision Petitioners. The respondent's learned counsel sought to distinguish the said decision on the ground that in the instant case the appeal said to have been filed was out of time and that therefore, there has been no appeal at all to attract the principle laid down by the Full Bench in Kurien's case.

(3.) The Supreme Court in Immigration Service v. Stanisic ( AIR 1970 SC 1 ) said on the right of appeal as follows: