M A RAJARATHNAM Vs. T RAJAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case comes before us on a reference by Swamikkannu J. The question is whether in a revision filed under Sec 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960. the revision petitioner is entitled to exclude the time taken for obtaining a certified copy of the order of the appellate authority for purposes of limitation, Since the learned Judge felt some difficulty in the matter, he referred the question to be decided by a Bench.

(2.) Under the scheme of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control Act), proceedings in the first instance are heard and determined by the Rent Controller. Against any order passed by the Rent Controller, See. 23 of the Rent Control Act provides for an appeal to an appellate authority~ From an order passed by an appellate authority, a revision lies to this court under See. 25 of the Rent Control Act It has been held by the Supreme Court in a recent decision that notwithstanding the wide language used in describing the power of revision of the High Court under See. 25 of the Act, that. in essence, is Only a revisional jurisdiction and not an appellate jurisdiction. Section 25 (2) provides for a period of limitation within which a revision petition can be filed before this Court. The same section also Provides for a limited jurisdiction, in the High Court to allow further time under certain circumstances. The provisions regarding limitation in Sec. 25 are cast in the following words

(3.) The period of limitation prescribed in See. 25 (2) is one month from the date on which the appellate authority's order is communicated to the revision petitioner The question is whether in calculating the period of one month the revision petitioner is entitled to exclude the time taken by him for obtaining a certified copy of the order of the appellate authority which is sought to be subjected to revision.