PATTANSWAMI Vs. AMIRTHA JOTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter arises under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The above Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the judgment and decree in R.C.A. No. 57 of 1993 on the file of the Appellate Authority/Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruvelveli, confirming the order dated 13-8-1993 of the Rent Controller/Additional District Munsif, Tirunelveli, in R.C.O.P. No. 12 of 1991. To condone the delay of 47 days in filing the revision, C.M.P. No. 13020 of 1996 has been filed.

(2.) Notice was ordered in the condone delay petition on 30-10-1996 to the respondent returnable by four weeks. On service of notice, the respondent entered appearance through M/s. K. V. Ananthakrishnan and V. Chandrasekar. The respondent has also filed a counter-affidavit opposing the petition to condone the delay.

(3.) In this case, the judgment in the appeal was passed on 6-3-1996. The Copy Application was made on 7-3-1996. The copy was made ready on 18-4-1996. The revision was filed in this Court on 4-7-1996 with a delay of 47 days. The petitioner filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. It is stated in the affidavit that the counsel appearing for the petitioner in the Court below has not forwarded the certified copies of the judgment in time to the petitioner which occasioned the delay in filing the revision. It is also stated in the affidavit that since the last date for filing the revision was on 10-6-1996, i.e., on the date of reopening of the High Court, there is a delay of 23 days in filing the revision. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that since there is no specific exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to the Act in question, the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Shantilal M. Bhayani v. Shanti Bai, 1995 Suppl (4) SCC 578, can be made applicable to a revision to this Court under Section 25 of the Act.