SETH BAL GOPAL DAS Vs. STATE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is a tenant of premises No. 86 -A Rajpur Road, Dehradun, of which Respondent no 4, Smt. Sheila Kalha, is the landlady. Smt. Sheila Kalha applied for permission to file a suit for Petitioner's ejectment on the ground that she needed the accommodation in dispute for her own use and occupation. By his order dated 11th of August, 1969, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer Dehradun, granted the permission sought or by Respondent No. 4. Being aggrieved' by that order the Petitioner made an application addressed to, the Commissioner, Meerut Division and filed the same before the Additional Distt. Magistrate of Dehradun on 16th of September, 1969. (This application was received in the office of the Commissioner, Meerut Division on 24th of September, 1969. When the Revision application came Up for hearing, a preliminary objection that the revision filed by the Petitioner was barred by time, was raised on behalf of Respondent No. 4. The learned Commissioner held that a revision Under Sec. 3(2) of the U.P. (Temp.) Control of Rent and Eviction Act can only be filed within thirty days as provided therein. Since the revision application had been received in his office at Meerut on 24th of September, 1969, it was barred by time. He accordingly upheld the preliminary objection and dismissed the revision. The Petitioner then went up in -revision before the State Government, Under Sec. 7 -F of the U.P. Rent Control and Eviction Act. The State Government held the order passed by the Commissioner Meerut Division and dismissed the revision. It observed that the Petitioner could apply for revision of the order dated 11th of August, 1969, passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, only upto 10th of September, 1969. Even if it be taken that the Petitioner filed the revision application on 16th of September, 1969 when he presented it before the Additional District Magistrate, it still had been filed beyond the period prescribed Under Sec. 3(2) of the Act and was barred by time. It also observed that as on the basis of the permission granted by the Rent Control and Eviction officer the landlady had already filed a suit on 19th of November, 1969, the proceedings before if by way of revision were (sic).

(2.) The Petitioner has now approached this Court for relief Under Article 226 of the Constitution. He contends that he took six days in obtaining (sic) copy of the order dated 11th of August, 1969, before presenting his application in revision in the office of the Additional District Magistrate. Dehradun on 10th of September, 1969, for being (sic) ed to the Commissioner, Meerut Division. While computing the period of (sic) limitation for filing a revision application Under Sec. 3(2) of the U.P. Act IV of 1947, he is entitled to exclude the time required for obtaining certified copy of the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, as provided in Sec. 12(2) of the Indian Limitation Act. The revision application addressed to the Commissioner Meerut Division and filed before the (sic) District Magistrate, Dehradun was therefore within time and both the learned Commissioner and the State Government committed an error of jurisdiction by not entertaining and deciding it on merits.

(3.) In this connection two points arise for consideration. (1) Whether the application for revision of the order dated 11 -8 -69 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, was made to the Commissioner on 16 -9 -1972 when it was filed in the office of the Additional District Magistrate, Dehradun or when it was received in the office of the Commissioner on 24 -9 -1972 and (2) whether the Petitioner is entitled to exclude the time taken for obtaining certified copy of the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, in computing the period of limitation prescribed Under Sec. 3(2) of the U.P. Rent Control and Eviction Act?