KUNNUMMAL CHOVVARU Vs. A K JANAKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent herein filed an application before the Land Tribunal under S.72B of Kerala Act 1 of 1964 for purchase of the landlord's right in the tenancy holding. In the application, the revision petitioner has been shown as the landlord. He did not put in appearance and after the usual enquiry the Land Tribunal allowed the application. The revision petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority with a petition under S.5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The appellate authority was not satisfied that there were any valid grounds to condone the delay and accordingly dismissed the petition as well as the appeal. Hence the revision.

(2.) The order of the Land Tribunal is dated 17-10-1973. The revision petitioner applied for copies on 9-10-1976 and obtained copies on 25-10-1976. He filed the appeal on 9-12-1976. The appeal, it is clear, was hopelessly barred by time. The only ground on which the revision petitioner contends that the delay in filing the appeal is liable to be condoned is that the notice issued by the Land Tribunal was never tendered to him nor refused by him and that he came to know about the proceedings and the order only on 7-10-1976. He did not care to reveal under what circumstances he became aware of the proceedings and the order. The appellate authority was not satisfied that the ground urged is true or sufficient to condone the delay.

(3.) The records of the Land Tribunal show that Form E notice of the claim made by the first respondent was issued to the revision petitioner and the process server reported that notice was tendered to the revision petitioner, that he refused to receive it and therefore the process server served it by affixture. The affixture was evidenced by witnesses. The same thing happened when Form 'F' notice of the preliminary order was attempted to be served on the revision petitioner. Return on that notice also shows that the revision petitioner refused to receive the notice and thereupon the notice was served by affixture. The Land Tribunal noted that the respondent was absent. The return of the process server is prima facie entitled to some weight. It was open to the revision petitioner to examine himself or adduce other evidence before the Appellate Authority to controvert the averments in the returns and show that notices were never tendered to him and he never refused the same and that the notices were never affixed. He did not care to adduce any such evidence. There was, therefore, nothing wrong in the appellate authority acting on the two returns of the process server and holding that the ground urged has not been established.