R S HOON Vs. AZAEEMUNNISSA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH I am aware that I am beating a dead snake, I am obliged to do it somewhat elaborately on account of the lengthy arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner in the fervent hope that he could persuade me to deviate from the well laid path and pave the way to the constitution of a Full Bench to consider the matter. Unfortunately for him I concur whole heartedly with the decisions rendered already by this Court and there is no question of a reference to a Full Bench. However, I have come out with a long essay on the subject lest I should be accused for not having applied my mind to the points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) THE two revision petitions are against the common order passed by the VII Judge, Court Small Causes, Madras while discharging his functions as an Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and rent Control) Act, 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973 in R. C. A. No. 109 and 110 of 1985 on his file which arose from R. C. O. P. No. 4812 of 1985, XIII Judge, Court of small Causes, Madras filed by the respondents herein for fixation of fair rent for a building occupied by the petitioner herein as tenant. THE order of the Appellate authority was made on 28. 2. 1986. THE revision petitions were presented in this court on 31. 7. 86 after delay of 107 days. C. M. P. S. R. No. 56123 of 1986 and 85590 of 1987 are for condonation of the delay of 107 days in preferring c. R. P. S. R. No. 56121 of 1986 and C. R. P. S. R. No. 56119 of 1986 respectively. THE two c. M. P's are filed under S. 25 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and rent Control) Act, 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973, hereinafter referred to as the Act. C. M. P. S. R. No. 85587 of 1987 is filed under S. 151, Code of Civil procedure for condonation of a delay of 433 days in proper presentation of c. R. P. S. R. No. 56121 of 1986.

(3.) IN M. M. Thimmiah v. M. G. Krishna Reddy and Company, 1983 T. N. L. J. 281, Sathiadev, J. , discussed the question in detail and held that S. 25 (2) of the Act expressly exclude the applicability of S. 5 of the limitation Act. The Learned Judge relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh v. M/s. Parson Tools and Plants, kangam, A. I. R. 1975 S. C. 1039 and Mohd Ashfaq v. State Transport Appellate tribunal, U. P. , Ors. , A. I. R. 1976 S. C. 2161: (1975)4 S. C. C. 92: 1975 tax. L. R. 1529. While the former decision of the Supreme Court was under U. P. Sales Tax Act, the Later was under Motor Vehicles Act. Both the Acts contained provisions similar to S. 25 (2) of the Act now in question and the Supreme court held that the provisions of S. 5 of the Limitation Act were expressly excluded thereby. As learned counsel before me made an attempt to distinguish the decisions of the Supreme Court, I will refer to them in detail later when I consider the arguments advanced before me.