RAM SARUP Vs. NATHU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will deal with five revision petitions (Nos. 155-D, 156-D, 157-D of 1954, 198-D of 1954, and 427-D of 1954) in which the points involved are common. In each of the cases a tenant had filed an application in the Court of the Additional Small Cause Court Judge under the provisions of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act of 1952 for the fixation of the standard rent of the premises occupied by him, the application in Civil Revision No. 198-D being filed on the 26th of November, 1952, that in Civil Revision No. 427-D on the 31st October, 1952 and the applications in the other three cases being filed on the 8th of December, 1952 which happened to be the last day of limitation since section 11 of the Act in the portion relevant to these cases had fixed the period of limitation as six months from the commencement of the Act.

(2.) It appears, however, that although under the Act which was replaced by the Act of 1952 the Small Cause Court Judge had jurisdiction to decide these matters in cases where the annual rental value was not more than Rs. 2,000, section 33 of the new Act made a change and gave jurisdiction only to those civil Courts which had jurisdiction to hear and decide suits for recovery of possession of any premises. In other words, after the commencement of the new Act the Small Cause Court Judge was no longer competent to fix the standard rent of any premises even of an annual rental value of less than Rs. 2,000. The result was that on various dates the applications in these cases were returned by the Additional Small Cause Court Judge for presentation to the proper Court and they were promptly filed in the Court of the Sub-Judge having jurisdiction. The landlords then naturally raised the objection that the applications were barred by time. This objection was upheld by the learned Subordinate Judge who decided the cases and the applications were accordingly dismissed. On appeals by the tenants, however, the learned Senior Sub Judge came to the conclusion that a bona fide mistake had been made and that the tenants were entitled to the benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act. He, therefore, accepted the appeals and referred the cases to the lower Court for decision on the merits.

(3.) Prima facie there do not appear to be any very strong reasons why in revision this Court should reverse the decision of the appellate Court to the effect that the tenants in these cases should be excused for having filed their applications by mistake in the Court which hitherto had jurisdiction to entertain them, and that it was a fit case giving them the benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act. It would in fact appear from the judgment of the learned of the learned Senior Sub Judge that these are not the only five cases of this kind and that there was a large number of cases in which the same mistake had been made and thus it would seem that to hold that the mistake was not bona fide would be tantamount to branding as incompetent a fair number of the Delhi District Bar. The decision whether a particular set of circumstances justifies a Court in giving a litigant the benefit of the provisions of section 14 of the Limitation Act amounts to exercising a discretion, and where such a discretion has been exercised without violating the ordinary principles governing such matters this Court would be very reluctant to interfere by way of revision.