NANIK RAM Vs. BAVARLAL DIED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, who has presented this L.R. petition in CRP No.889 of 2002, contends that there is no period of limitation prescribed for bringing legal representatives in the revision. She placed reliance on the decision reported in Nathooram Kapoor v. E. Harbansilal Tuli, AIR 1982 AP 278. The relevant portion at Paras 3 and 4 read as follows:

(2.) It is clear from a perusal of the principles enunciated in the aforesaid decision that no limitation is prescribed for preferring any revision under the Rent Control Act. Does it mean the revision can be preferred at any time. Does the Legislature contemplate preferring or entertaining revisions after long lapse of time? Section 24 of the Act empowers the person to initiate proceedings by or against the legal representative in the event of death of the party. It is stated in clause (2) of Section 24 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 that any application, appeal or other proceedings could be preferred under this Act, by or against any person, such application, appeal or other proceeding, may, in the event of death of the party, be made, preferred or taken by or against his legal representatives. Rule 19 of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, 1961 prescribes period of limitation of thirty days for bringing legal representatives on record. Rule 19(2) mentions that application can be admitted after expiry of the period of limitation if the applicant satisfies the Controller or Appellate Authority that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within the time. These rules and the provisions under the Act are silent with regard to the applicability of period of limitation to the revisions preferred before the High Court. There appears to be a big lacuna under the Act. In fact, limitation is prescribed for preferring revisions under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. When such is the case, it cannot be said that provisions under the Rent Control Act stand on high pedestal than the proceedings initiated under the Code of Civil Procedure. After all the Tribunals are created under the Rent Control Act and if any revision is to be preferred, it cannot be left without prescribing the limitation. It is a fit case where the Registrar (Judicial) has to examine whether limitation has to be prescribed for preferring revision as well as for filing LR application before this Court immediately since it is likely to yield negative results and allows the party to have his leisurely time to bring legal representatives and it will be impossible for any Court to render quick justice.

(3.) In that view of the matter, I am of considered view that the matter has to be placed by the Registrar (Judicial) with a direction to place before the Hon'ble Chief Justice in order to get the rules amended on the limitation prescribed for preferring revisions under Miscellaneous Acts and also prescribing limitation for filing L.R.application.