BIJANLATA BASSAK Vs. BHUDHAR CHANDRA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Rules came up for hearing before Chunder J. and have been referred by him to a Division Bench.

(2.) The only question which arises for consideration in these Rules is whether there is any reason to interfere with the order of the court of appeal below rejecting an application under Section 5, Limitation Act for extension of time for filing the appeals. It appears that both the appeals were filed by the landlord against orders passed on 26/8/1950 on applications for fixation of rent by a tenant. The memorandum of one appeal was filed on 5/9/1950 and that of the other was filed on 16/9/1950, but in both cases without any copy of the order appealed from. The copies of the orders were filed as late as 10/7/1953 and at the same time applications were filed in both the cases for condoning the delay. The learned court below has dismissed these applications. It was of the opinion that Section 5, Limitation Act did not apply to appeals under the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act inasmuch as Section 29(2), Limitation Act stood in the way. It was further of opinion that in any rase the affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant did not disclose arty circumstance which, could justify any order condoning the delay in filing the certified copy. Section 29(2), Limitation Act is in these words:

(3.) This section was analysed by this Court in - 'Province of Bengal v. Amilya Dhon Addy. Their Lordships were of opinion that the first portion of Clause (2) of Section 29 deals with only those cases where a period of limitation is prescribed under the Schedule of the Limitation Act but a different period of limitation has been prescribed in the special law and that the effect of the words "the provisions of Section 3 shall apply" was that Sections 4 to 25, Limitation Act will also apply as Section 3 itself provides that