SMT. TARBUNNISHA Vs. SHISH MOHAMMAD (DEAD) AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner, who is a tenant, has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 14.5.2003, filed as Annexure -6 to the writ petition, whereby the Court below has refused to condone the delay in filing the revision and the order dated 29.8.2003 (Annexure -9 to the writ petition) whereby the Court below has rejected the revision as barred by time.

(2.) IT appears that S.C.G. Suit No. 16 of 1976 was instituted by the respondents -landlords against the petitioner for ejectment, recovery of arrears of rent and damages, etc. after terminating the tenancy by service of a notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The suit was contested on number of points including that there is no default in payment of the rent and the notice served upon the tenant is not valid. The suit has been decreed by the judgment and decree dated 8.12.1995 on the finding that the notice served on the petitioner is valid and the petitioner has not committed any default in payment of the rent. The decree for eviction was passed on the ground that the tenancy of the petitioner was a fixed term tenancy which expired after expiry of five years and the lease has not been renewed thereafter Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the petitioner filed a revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act along with an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the revision. The Court below by the order dated 14.5.2003 refused to condone the delay in filing the revision, but fixed 8.7.2003 for disposal of the Application No. 4 Ka/1 (revision petition). By the subsequent order dated 29.8.2003, the Court below dismissed the revision as barred by time in the light of the findings recorded by it in its earlier order dated 14.5.2003. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid two orders, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) THE Apex Court, time and again, has held that in such matters, the approach of the Court should be justice oriented. In Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another v. Mst. Katiji and others : 1987 (13) ALR 306 (SC) : 1987 RD 416, the Supreme Court has laid down the following to be observed by the Courts in such matters: