GIRIJA BAI DIED Vs. JAIWANTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .The Tahsildar of Mudhole of District Adilabad for recovery of rent for the years 1956 to 1959 and for eviction of the tenant. On 6th February, 1960, the Tahsildar passed an order directing payment of rent as prayed for, terminating the tenancy and also ordering eviction of the tenant under section 28 (1) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. The tenant did not file an appeal against that order but filed a petition on 24th May, 1960, praying for setting aside the exparte order dated 6th February, 1960. The Tahsildar passed an order dated 22nd June, 1960, as follows : Notice is hereby given to you that final orders have been passed on 6th February, 1960 in file No. A4/900/59 with regard to the lands bearing S. No. 42/1-2. Now no farther action could be taken on your petition. So you may file an appeal in the competent Department with regard to your rights."

(2.) The tenant filed an appeal to the Collector against that order dated 22nd June, 1960, (not against order dated 6th February, 1960). The Collector, passed an order on 17th January, 1962, allowing the appeal regarding termination and confirming the order regarding payment of rent and setting aside the order dated 6th February, 1960, so far as the termination of the tenancy was concerned. Against that order of the Collector the petitioner filed this Revision Petition on 7th April, 1962. Sri Kondapi, learned Advocate for the tenant, raised a preliminary objection that the revision petition is barred by limitation as it was filed more than 60 days after the date of the order of the Collector. He relies on the provisions of section 93 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act which runs as follows ; " Every appeal and every application for revision under this Act shall be filed within sixty day3 from the date of the order against which the appeal or application is filed and the provisions of the (Indian) Limitation Act, 1908 shall apply for the purposes of the computation of the said period. "

(3.) He also relies on the decision of Venkatesam, J., in Civil Revision Petition No. 2098 of 1962 dated 11th October, 1963, for the position that section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to cases under the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act and that, therefore, the delay cannot be excused. Shri Madhava Rao for the land-lady agrees that section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to the Hy 'erabad Tenancy Act but says that limitation has to be computed only from the date on which the Advocate and his party came to know of the order of the Collector viz., 5th March, 1962. The order of the Collector is signed by the Advocate for the land-lady with date 5th March, 1962. It does not show that prior notice was given to the land-lady or her advocate that order Would be pronounced on 17th January, 1962. I find no room to reject the statement of fact by Sri Madhava Rao that the Advocate came to know of the Order of the Collector only on 5th March, 1962, and that, before that date, neither the Advocate nor the land-lady knew about the passing of that order. In the following decisions viz., (1) C.R.P. Nos. 70 to 77 of 1958 decided on 12th November, 1962, by Sharfuddin Ahmed, J., and (2) C.R.P. Nos. 1652, 1653 and 1685 of 1957 decided on 27th September, 1962, by Gopal Rao Ekbote, J., it has been held that, under such circumstances when an order was pronounced without notice to a party and when the latter came to know of it on a certain date, limitation should be computed from the date on which the party came to know about the order. I respectfully follow the above decisions and hold that time for limitation began to run only from 5th March, 1962 and that, therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is in time.