Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1972 DIGILAW 465 (ALL)

Seth Bal Gopal Das v. State

1972-10-31

H.N.SETH

body1972
ORDER H.N. Seth, J. - The Petitioner is a tenant of premises No. 86-A Rajpur Road, Dehradun, of which Respondent no 4, Smt. Sheila Kalha, is the landlady. Smt. Sheila Kalha applied for permission to file a suit for Petitioner's ejectment on the ground that she needed the accommodation in dispute for her own use and occupation. By his order dated 11th of August, 1969, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer Dehradun, granted the permission sought or by Respondent No. 4. Being aggrieved' by that order the Petitioner made an application addressed to, the Commissioner, Meerut Division and filed the same before the Additional Distt. Magistrate of Dehradun on 16th of September, 1969. (This application was received in the office of the Commissioner, Meerut Division on 24th of September, 1969. When the Revision application came Up for hearing, a preliminary objection that the revision filed by the Petitioner was barred by time, was raised on behalf of Respondent No. 4. The learned Commissioner held that a revision u/s 3(2) of the U.P. (Temp.) Control of Rent and Eviction Act can only be filed within thirty days as provided therein. Since the revision application bad been received in his office at Meerut on 24th of September, 1969, it was barred by time. He accordingly upheld the preliminary objection and dismissed the revision. The Petitioner then went up in-revision before the State Government, u/s 7-F of the U.P. Rent Control and Eviction Act. The State Government held the order passed by the Commissioner Meerut Division and dismissed the revision. It observed that the Petitioner could apply for revision of the order dated 11th of August, 1969, passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, only upto 10th of September, 1969. Even if it be taken that the Petitioner filed the revision application on 16th of September, 1969 when he presented it before the Additional District Magistrate, it still had been filed beyond the period prescribed u/s 3(2) of the Act and was barred by time. It also observed that as on the basis of the permission granted by the Rent Control and Eviction officer the landlady had already filed a suit on 19th of November, 1969, the proceedings before if by way of revision were (sic). 2. The Petitioner has now approached this Court for relief Under Article 226 of the Constitution. It also observed that as on the basis of the permission granted by the Rent Control and Eviction officer the landlady had already filed a suit on 19th of November, 1969, the proceedings before if by way of revision were (sic). 2. The Petitioner has now approached this Court for relief Under Article 226 of the Constitution. He contends that he took six days in obtaining (sic) copy of the order dated 11th of August, 1969, before presenting his application in revision in the office of the Additional District Magistrate. Dehradun on 10th of September, 1969, for being (sic) ed to the Commissioner, Meerut Division. While computing the period of (sic) limitation for filing a revision application u/s 3(2) of the U.P. Act IV of 1947, he is entitled to exclude the time required for obtaining certified copy of the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, as provided in Section 12(2) of the Indian Limitation Act. The revision application addressed to the Commissioner Meerut Division and filed before the (sic) District Magistrate, Dehradun was therefore within time and both the learned Commissioner and the State Government committed an error of jurisdiction by not entertaining and deciding it on merits. 3. In this connection two points arise for consideration. (1) Whether the application for revision of the order dated 11-8-69 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, was made to the Commissioner on 16-9-1972 when it was filed in the office of the Additional District Magistrate, Dehradun or when it was received in the office of the Commissioner on 24-9-1972 and (2) whether the Petitioner is entitled to exclude the time taken for obtaining certified copy of the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, in computing the period of limitation prescribed u/s 3(2) of the U.P. Rent Control and Eviction Act? 4. So far as the first question is concerned, Section 3(2) of the Act provides that a party aggrieved by an order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer granting permission to file a suit for his ejectment has to apply to the Commissioner for its revision within 30 days of its communication. 4. So far as the first question is concerned, Section 3(2) of the Act provides that a party aggrieved by an order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer granting permission to file a suit for his ejectment has to apply to the Commissioner for its revision within 30 days of its communication. Normally an application is made to an authority when it is presented before, it Learned Counsel for the Petitioner could not point out any provision in the Act or in the Rules framed thereunder which provides that an application in revision addressed to the Commissioner should be presented before the Additional District Magistrate concerned instead, he relied upon some sort of practice which prevailed in Dehradun, according to which applications in revision, addressed to Commissioner, Meerut Division, were being handed over in the office of the Additional District Magistrate for being transmitted to him. The circumstances in which this practice developed and the basis for the same have not been disclosed in the petition. In the, absence of a rule or any other statutory provision, presentation of an application before Additional District Magistrate could be equated with its presentation before the Commissioner only if the Commissioner had authorised the Additional District Magistrate to receive such applications on his behalf. In the absence of such a direction from the Commissioner, the date on which such an application can be said to have been made to the Commissioner would be the date on which it is presented to him either by the Applicant himself or through the agency of the Additional District Magistrate. Even if, some Commissioner, had in the past, authorised such a procedure, there is nothing to show that the present Commissioner before whom the revision was to be filed had authorised such a procedure. In the absence of any such authorisation from the Commissioner, the Additional Distt. Magistrate could not be considered to be his agent for purposes of receiving applications. Learned. Commissioner was, therefor, right in holding that the revision application which came up before him on 24th of September, 1969 was barred by time. It is conceded on behalf of the Petitioner that even, if, the time taken for obtaining certified copy of the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer is excluded, the revision, if is taken to have been filed on 24th of Sept. 1969, would be barred by time. 5. It is conceded on behalf of the Petitioner that even, if, the time taken for obtaining certified copy of the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer is excluded, the revision, if is taken to have been filed on 24th of Sept. 1969, would be barred by time. 5. So far as the point whether the Petitioner is entitled to exclude the time taken for obtaining certified copy of the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer is concerned, it stands concluded by a number of decisions of this Court. See Ram Lakhan v. Bishesharnath Commissioner Allahabad Division Allahabad 1959 ALJ 733 Shyam Sunder Bajpai v. Commissioner, Allahabad Division 1965 ALJ 211, Ram Lakhan v. Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi 1970 AWR 521 and Writ Petition No. 5516 of 1970 decided on 10th of November, 1971. In all these cases it has been held that in computing the period of limitation for making a revision application u/s 3(2) of the Act, time required for obtaining certified copy of the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer cannot be excluded. In view of these decisions, even if it be held that the application for revising the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was made to the. Commissioner when it 'was presented before the Additional District Magistrate on 16th of September, 1969, it would still be barred by time. Shri Jagdish Swarup appearing for the Petitioner strenuously argued that the decisions mentioned above do not lay down correct law. These decisions are binding upon me as a single Judge and therefore I propose to follow them, specially when the petition is liable to fail on other ground also. 6. I accordingly, find no force in this petition which is dismissed with costs.