JASWANT RAI Vs. HARBANS LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of the above titled revision petition as well Revision Petition Nos. 3164 of 1983 (Jaswant Rai v. Harbans Lal) and 3165 of 1983 (Jaswant Rai v. Harbans Lal) as the facts and law point involved in all these cases are similar.

(2.) IT appears that Jaswant Rai filed three ejectment petitions under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short the 'Act') against the present respondent Harbans Lal in respect of three rented premises. In all of them arguments were heard on 27th November, 1982. On the same day the tenant, under the rules framed by this Court, filed application for supplying to him the copies of the orders that might be passed in cases. Orders in these ejectment applications were announced on 30th November, 1982 and those went against the tenant. The tenant took delivery of the copies on 10th December, 1982. On each of the copies it was endorsed that those were ready on 1st December, 1982. Three different appeals were filed on 4th January 1983 in the Court of Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, appointed under the Act. Notices in the appeal was issued to the landlord. He appeared before the said authority and took objection that the appeals were time-barred. Thereupon the tenant presented an application in each of the appeals under section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeals. It was stated by him in the applications that when the orders were announced on 30th November 1982 and thus he took delivery of the copies on that latter date. He further pleaded that the appeals were filed on 25th November, 1982 and thus those were within time.. (The plea of the tenant that he had filed appeals on 25th November 1982 is not correct as those were filed on 4th January, 1983. It was not disputed that the Civil Courts were closed from 24th December, 1982 to 3rd January, 1983, both days inclusive). Before the Appellate Authority the only dispute was whether the tenant was entitled to exclude the period from Ist December, 1982 to 10th December, 1982 while computing the period of 15 days prescribed under Section 15(1)(b) of the Act for preferring an appeal to the Appellate Authority having jurisdiction. The Appellate Authority came to the opinion that the tenant was entitled to the above exclusion of time and otherwise also there were sufficient grounds for entertaining the appeals filed beyond the period prescribed for filing the appeal as the delay was neither international nor was the result of any negligence on the part of the tenant. He accordingly held the various appeals to be within limitation and adjourned them for arguments on merits. The landlord has now filed these 3 revision petitions challenging the orders passed in those three appeals.

(3.) IN the present case, while excluding the period from Ist December, 1982 to 10th December, 1982 while computing the period of limitation prescribed for the appeal, the Appellate Authority had taken into consideration, the fact that there was no evidence to show that any docket was issued by Stenographer attached to the Rent Controller, to the tenant specifying the date on which the tenant was required to collect the copies. Admittedly the copies were not ready on 30th November, 1982 on which date the orders were announced. No duty was cast upon the tenant to contact the Stenographer of the Rent Controller daily to enquire if the copies were ready or not. When the tenant had applied for the copies and they were ready on the date on which the orders were announced, the Stenographer attached to the Rent Controller ought to have issued notice either to the tenant or his Lawyer to collect the copies.