DHARAMRAJ MAHADEO Vs. ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AKOLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by a tenant against an order passed in a proceeding under the C. P. and Berar House Rent Control Order permitting the landlord to terminate his tenancy. During the course of the proceeding before the Rent Controller the parlies came to an agreement that the landlord will withdraw the application if the rental arrears amounting to Rs. 65/- were paid by the tenant in the Court by 5-8-1955. The order-sheet of the case which embodies the agreement reads as follows :

(2.) AN appeal was preferred by the tenant against this order before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Akola, but that appeal was dismissed.

(3.) IN our opinion, the legal position is clear that where a party is given time to do an act, i. e. , to make a payment by a particular date he is entitled to do that dining the course of that day. In other words, that dale is not to be excluded. The learned Additional Deputy Commissioner took the view that the act had to be done before that dates In our opinion, that view is incorrect and is not in consonance with the principle underlying Section 9 of the Indian General Clauses Act and Section 8 of the Central Provinces and Berar General Clauses Act, 1914. That this principle can be applied to the orders and decrees of the Court has been held in Devi Das v. Sadur-Ud-Din, ILR 16 Lah 1082: (AIR 1935 Lah 291) (A), and some other cases. We may also refer to the decision of Niyogi J. in Shekh Nuroo v. Meghraj, ILR: 1937 Nag 214: (AIR 1937, Nag 139) (B), to the effect that the word "by'' when used with reference to a particular date does not exclude but includes the day. The same view has been taken by a single Judge of the Madras High Court in Janakumara v. Periaswatny, AIR 1949 Mad 376 (C ).