KRISHNAN Vs. NAVOORKANIKA RAWTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a proceeding under the Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, started by the respondent landlord the Appellate Authority passed an order on June 3, 1976 on the ground of arrears of rent under S.11(2)(b) directing the petitioner tenant to put the respondent in possession of the building in question. The order contained a rider that the petitioner could got the order vacated by depositing the arrears of rent, interest and costs within one month. On an application made by the petitioner on July 3, 1976 the Appellate Authority extended the time for depositing the amounts till August 5, 1976 On July 7, 1976 he deposited Rs. 1000/- towards the amount. On August 5 he did not deposit the balance or make any application for extension of the time. However on August 19, 1976 he filed an application I.A. 2081 stating that he had deposited the balance and praying that time might be extended and the order of eviction set aside. The Appellate Authority dismissed the application in the view that as the application had not been made before expiry of the time it had become functus officio and that the application was therefore not maintainable. This dismissal has been confirmed by the learned District Judge in revision.

(2.) S.11(2)(c) reads:

(3.) In Mahanth Ram Das v. Ganga Das. AIR 1961 SC 882 , the High Court of Patna allowed the appeal filed by the appellant but with a direction that he would pay additional court fee as calculated by the office within three months of the intimation given to his counsel and that "if the amount is not paid within the time given the appeal will stand dismissed." The office of the High Court gave intimation to his counsel on April 8, 1954. On July 8, which was the last day of the period given, the appellant made an application requesting that be allowed to pay Rs. 1400/- immediately and the balance of Rs. 587-80 within a month thereafter. The High Court dismissed the application on July 13, 1954 in the view that by virtue of the order in the appeal, "the appeal has already stood dismissed as the amount was not paid within the time given". The appellant then filed an application under S.151, CPC. and this was dismissed on September 2, 1954 by another Bench which felt that the proper remedy was review. Then be filed another application under S.151 read with O.47, R.1, CPC. setting out the reasons why he was unable to find the money and offering to pay the deficit court fee within such further time as the High Court might fix. the High Court held that the application did not fall within O.47, R.1 and it also rejected his prayer for extension of time under S.148 or S.149, CPC. on the ground that these Sections applied only to cases which were not finally disposed of and that time under them could be extended only before the final order was actually made. For the same reason the High Court also refused the request to extend the time under the inherent powers of the Court. On appeal the Supreme Court held in the first place that the High Court could have allowed the first application filed on July 8, 1954 before the time fixed for the payment of deficit court fee had run out, for though it came up for hearing on July 13, 1954 after expiry of the time, S.148 CPC. in terms allowed extension of time even if the original period fixed has expired and that the order though passed after the time originally fixed would have operated from July 8, 1954. Their Lordships proceeded to observe that the High Court could also have exercised its inherent powers when the two petitions under S.151, CPC. were filed and concluded: