MEHAR SINGH Vs. BALDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution and it arises under the following circumstances. The petitioner, Mehar Singh, filed an application under Section 4, East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, as applied to Himachal Pradesh, against the respondent, Baldev Singh, for determination of the fair rent of a stall occupied by him. The Subordinate Judge of Mandi, who performs the functions of a Controller under the Act fixed the rent at Rs. 32/ p. m. Mehar Singh then filed an appeal to the District Judge, who has been appointed as 'Appellate Authority' for the purposes of the Act. The latter held that the appeal was time barred and, accordingly, rejected the appeal. Since the order of the Appellate Authority is not open to revision, the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. His contention is that the Appellate Authority should have disposed of the appeal on its merits and has erred in holding that it was time barred, and thereby refusing to go into the merits of the case.

(2.) A perusal of the order of the Appellate Authority would show that he was under the impression that the provisions of the Limitation Act would not be applicable to appeals under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. The Appellate Authority, in the course of his order, remarks

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the Bombay case cited above would not go against him, because there, the Act did not prescribe any period of limitation for a review application under Section 38 of that Act. That being so, Section 29 (2) obviously would have no application. In 'Imperial Bucket Co., a firm v. Sm. Bhagwati Basak', AIR 1954 Cal 520 (B), cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, was dealing with the question of an appeal under Section 32 (1), West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act. In that case, too, the District Judge of Howrah, as the Appellate Authority, rejected an . appeal from the Rent Controller on the ground that it was time barred, holding that the time spent in obtaining a certified copy of the Rent Controller's order could not be excluded by virtue of the provisions of Section 12, Limitation Act. Their Lordships found that there was no express provision in the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act excluding the operation of the provisions contained in the Limitation Act, referred to in Section 29 (2), Limitation Act. Their Lordships then discussed the question whether the provisions of Section 29 (2), Limitation Act, would apply to proceedings under the Bent Control Act. In the words of their Lordships: