T.T. JACOB Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This original petition is filed challenging Ext. P6 order passed by the first respondent Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri. T.K. Vipindas and learned counsel Shri. P.K. Muhammed appearing for the contesting respondents.

(2.) The petitioner is a tenant in respect of certain rooms owned by respondents 2 and 3. The matter in question is one where the petitioner has taken a contention that the Appellate Authority has no power to condone the delay in filing the appeal by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Initially the tenant approached the Accommodation Controller, who passed Ext. P3 order. Ext P4 is the copy of the appeal filed under Section 13(6) of the Rent Control Act by respondents 2 and 3 and Ext. P4(6) is the application filed to condone the delay of 64 days in filing the appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of this Court in Rajam v. Narayanan Nair,1989 1 KerLT 699 holding the view that the District Collector is only an appellate forum and not an Appellate Authority. Therein, the issue considered was whether a Civil Revision Petition is maintainable, against the said order of the District Collector. As far as the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act is concerned, it is well settled that it may apply only in respect of Courts and it cannot be said that the District Collector, while exercising power under Section 13(6) of the Act, is functioning as a Court. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner is well founded. Herein, without passing any order on the application to condone the delay, final order has been passed in the appeal, by setting aside the order and remanding the matter. No power is conferred under Section 13(6) or under any other provisions to condone the delay in filing the appeal.