RATHINASAMY Vs. KOMALAVALLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter has come before the Bench on a reference by Ratnam J. on account of conflicting views expressed in the judgments of single Judges, namely by Balasubrahmanyam J. in Venkalmorban v. Dakshinamurthy, C. R. P. 1667 of 1978; by N. S. Ramaswami J. in J. Eswaan v. Palaniammal, 1974 TNLJ 380 and by Gokulakrishnan J. (as he then was) in S. Ganapathi v. Kumaraswami, on the important question whether S. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applied to appeals preferred under S. 23(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973.

(2.) The first respondent herein obtained an order of eviction against the petitioner and his wife, who is the second respondent herein in CROP 18 of 1979 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Muncie, Srikali). The eviction order was passed on 11-4-1980. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order before the appellate authority(Sub Court, Mayuram) on 18-6-1980 after a delay of 28 days. The petitioner filed I. A. 458 of 1980 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condoning the delay of 28 days. The first respondent raised an objection inter alia, that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to appeals filed under S. 23(1)(b) of the Act 18 of 1960.

(3.) The appellate authority took up the question 5 of the Limitation Act would apply to an appeal filed under the Rent Control Act for consideration in the first instance. Relying upon the decisions in Ganapathy v. Kumaraswamy, and Easwaran v. Palaniammal, 1974 TNLJ 380, the appellate authority gave the finding that Section 5 of the Limitation Act will not have any application in respect of applications filed under the Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960. Therefore, he did not go into the merits of the grounds stated for condoning the delay of 28 days.