VIDYA DEVI Vs. DHARAM VIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of Civil Revision Petitions Nos: 37, 38 and 39 of 1974, which are directed against a common judgment of District Judge, Jammu, dismissing three appeals being Nos: 80, 81 and 82 of 1971 against a common judgment of Rent Controller, Jammu, accepting three applications for fixation of fair rent.

(2.) THREE different tenants, namely, Dharam Vir Suresh Kumar, M/s Nav Bharat Pvt. Ltd., and Sharma and Co: filed three separate applications for fixation of fair rent against Vidya Devi, their common lessor in respect of building known as Vidya Bhawan of which they occupied different portions as tenants. These applications were tried jointly by the Rent Controller, and were also disposed of by a common judgment fixing fair rent. Three different appeals were preferred by Vidva Devi against the order of the Rent Controller before the District Judge, but certified copy of the order was enclosed with the memo of appeal No . 80 entitled Vidya Devi Versus Dharam Vir and another alone, and a note to that effect was recorded on the other two memos of appeals. All the three appeals were registered and notices were issued to the respondents. Counsel for the respondents in the two appeals, which were not accompanied by certified copies of the order appealed against, raised an objection, that the appeals were not competent. This objection found favour with the District Judge, who dismissed all the three appeals by a common judgment including the one in which even a certified copy of the order had been filed, as he wps of the opinion that the order of the Rent Controller in the two appeals which were not accompanied by certified copies of the order had become final and operated as res judicata in the third appeal. It is this order which has been assailed in these revision petitions.

(3.) AN appeal from a final order of the Rent Controller shall u/s 20 -(1) of the J and K Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 1966, lie to the District Judge. Sub -section (2) Section 21 prescribed a period of thirty days for filing such appeal excluding the day of the order and such time as is requisite for obtaining a certified copy of the order appealed against. Sub -sec. (3) lays down that the procedure for filing and hearing such appeals shall be the one as provided for appeals, against the orders under the Code of Civil Procedure. Rule 2 of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that provisions of Order 41 shall so far as may apply to appeals from orders. Rule 1 of Order 41 lays down that every memo of first appeal shall be accompanied by a copy of the decree as well as the judgment appealed against. It, however, authorises the court to dispense with the production of the copy of the judgment, but no such power vests in it in so far as copy of the decree is concerned. Obviously therefore, unless filing of the, copy of the judgment is dispensed with by the court, the appeal cannot be deemed to have been validly presented even if it is accompanied by a copy of the decree. No decree -sheet is required to be, prepared in respect of orders passed by the Rent Controller, consequently copy of the order passed by him alone has to be enclosed with the memo of appeal which must also be certified copy unless filing of the said copy is dispensed with by the appellate court. An appeal, which is not accompanied by a certified copy of the order of the Rent Controller should not therefore ordinarily be deemed to have been validly presented, unless production of the copy of the order appealed against has been dispensed with by the appellate court. But, before such a verdict may be given finally, one has to notice one more provision.