S. GANAPATHI Vs. N. KUMARASWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant is the petitioner herein. The respondent filed R. C. O. P. 559 of 1971, on the file of the First Additional District Munsif (Kent Controller) Madurai, for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of wilful default in the payment of rent. The Rent Controller found that the petitioner herein has committed wilful default in the payment of rents and on that ground, ordered eviction, giving the petitioner herein three months time for vacating the premises. Aggrieved by the decision of the Rent Controller, the petitioner herein presented a civil miscellaneous appeal before the Subordinate Judge of Madurai. Since there was a delay of 16 days in preferring the said appeal against the order of eviction, the petitioner herein filed I. A. 353 of 1973 along with the said appeal, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Following the principles laid down by this court in the decision reported in Eswaran v. Palaniammal,, 1974 TLNJ 380 to the effect that Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked by the Rent Controller and the Appellate authority under Act 18 of 1960 since they are not courts, but only persona designata, the Subordinate Judge dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the said decision of the Subordinate Judge, the tenant has preferred this revision petition.

(2.) THE only question that has to be decided in this civil revision petition is whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable for condoning the delay in preferring an appeal against the order of the Rent Controller.

(3.) SUB -section (3) of Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act XVIII of 1960, as amended by Act XXIII of 1973, defines 'Controller' as meaning -