ABRAHAM Vs. ASSOCIATED ENGINEERING CORPORATION, TRIVANDRUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This was referred to a Division Bench by our learned brother Sukumaran, J. The main question that falls for decision is whether the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, would apply to the proceedings initiated by the Appellate Authority constituted under Section 18 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965, (the Rent Control Act). The learned Subordinate Judge (Appellate Authority under the Rent Control Act) held that those provisions were not applicable to appeals filed under Section 18 of the Rent Control Act. In revision, the District Judge held that section 12 of the Limitation Act would apply. The facts are not in dispute, and could be stated as follows :- The order appealed against was passed by Rent Controller on 19.9.1981. The respondent applied for a certified copy of the order on 14.10.1981. Sheets were called for by the Rent Controller on 29.6.1982 ; and were produced by the appellant on 2-7-1982. The copy was ready on 15.7.1982 and the appellant was asked to appear on 18.7.1982. The respondent received the copy on 24.7.1982 ; and the appeal was filed on 2.8.1982. Section 18 of the Rent Control Act, so far as it is relevant for our purpose, provides as follows :-

(2.) Evidently the appeal was filed out of time prescribed under Section 18 of the Rent Control Act. The question was whether by the application of the provisions of Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the appeal Could be deemed to have been filed within time. A Full Bench of this Court in Vareed v. Mary, 1968 KerLT 583, held that it is clear from the relevant provisions of the act that the Rent Control Court as well as the appellate authorities are special Tribunals created by the statute and do not from part of the Hierarchy of the established Civil Court of the State. Another Full Bench of this Court in Jokkim Fernandez v. Amina Kunhi Umma, 1973 KerLT 138, held that the Limitation Act, 1963, applied only to Courts and prescribed periods of limitation in respect of suit, appeals and application filed only in Courts. Yet another Full Bench of this Court in Commr. of Agrl Income tax v. Thalayar Rubber Industries Ltd, 1981 KerLT 398, held that Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act could be relied on for extention of time in respect of proceeding in Court and not before a Tribunal or other authority under any local or special law; and Section 12 of the Act, on the other hand, related to the computation of the period of limitation and did not restrict its scope and applicability to proceedings in Court alone. On its terms, the provisions of Section 12(2) would apply for exclusion of the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree, sentence or order, in computing the period of limitation for an appeal or application. The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to invoke Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act to condone that delay in presenting an application under sub-section (1) of Section 60 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act. The Supreme Court in Udayan Chinubhai v. R.C. Bali, 1977 AIR(SC) 2319 in paragraphs 16 and 17, laid down as follows :-

(3.) The revision petitioner's case is stronger in this case as much as whereas the order was passed on 18.9.1981, the application for certified copy was made only on 14.10.1981, after the expiry of the period of thirty days for filing the appeal prescribed under Section 18(1)(b) of the Rent Control Act. Moreover, the Act or the Rules does not contemplate a separate decree and judgment, but only an order and, therefore, the Explanation to Section 12 of the Limitation Act also cannot help the respondent.