RAJU Vs. MOHAMADABI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the Rent Controller, the landlord went up in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 54 of 1984 before the appellate authority. It may be pointed out here that no appeal or revision was preferred against the order condoning the delay in filing the application for setting aside the exparte order of eviction. The appellate authority has held that the provisions of Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act are not attracted to the proceedings under Rule 18 of the Rules, as the Rent Controller is not a court, but a persona designata. Hence, the order passed by the Rent Controller condoning the delay in entertaining an application for setting aside the exparte decree filed beyond the period of limitation is non est. As such, he set aside the order of rent Controller and confirmed the ex parte order of eviction passed by the Rent controller on 11. 10. 1983.

(2.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Rent Controller is court and not a persona designata and the provisions of Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act are not excluded. It is contended that the appellate authority Is not right in holding that the appellate authority is not right in holding that the provisions of Sec. 5 of the limitation Act are not applicable to the proceeding under Rule 18 of the Rules.