JUDGMENT - Padhye R.S. J. -Petitioner No. 1 M/s Uttam Fancy Cloth Stores, a registered partnership firm carrying on the business of cloth merchants at Gondia, was occupying a house belonging to respondent landlord Dayachand Jain. An application was filed by landlord Dayachand under clauses 13(3)(ii)(v) and (vi) of the C. P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (referred 13 hereinafter for short as 'Rent Control Order') before the Rent Controller, Gondia who was pleased to grant permission under all the clauses of Rent Control Order mentioned above for terminating the tenancy of the petitioner firm. An appeal, being Rent Control Appeal No. l/A-71 (2) /80–81, was filed by the petitioner firm before the Resident Deputy Collector, Bhandara. It was partly allowed so far as permission under clause 13(3)(v) of the Rent Control Order was concerned by appellate judgment dated 20th October, 1980. Since the grant of permission under clauses 13(3)(ii) and (vi) was upheld in appeal, an application for review of the appellate order was filed by the petitioner firm on 30th January, 1981. Petitioner firm contended that the application for review was within time prescribed by clause 21 (2-a) of the Rent Control Order. It also filed an application under section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 by way of abundant caution. Respondent landlord opposed the review application on a preliminary objection on the question of limitation. The learned Deputy Collector, by his order dated 11th May, 1981 passed in review Appln. No. 17/A-71 (2) /S0–81 of Bhandara, rejected the review application on the ground of limitation and also rejected application under section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 on the ground that the delay did not deserve condona-tion. It is this order which is under challenge in the present petition. 2. Reference to certain dates will be necessary for appreciating the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner-firm as well as the respondent. Dates Description 28–10–1980 Appellate Order 31–10–1980 Date of communication of appellate order 11–11–1980 Date of application for certified copy of appellate order by petitioner. 5–12–1980 Date of receipt of certified copy. • 30–1-1981 Date of filing of Review Application. 3. Clause 21 of the Rent Control Order provides for filing of appeal as well as review application. Dates Description 28–10–1980 Appellate Order 31–10–1980 Date of communication of appellate order 11–11–1980 Date of application for certified copy of appellate order by petitioner. 5–12–1980 Date of receipt of certified copy. • 30–1-1981 Date of filing of Review Application. 3. Clause 21 of the Rent Control Order provides for filing of appeal as well as review application. It is as under: “21 (1)-Any person aggrieved by an order of the Controller, may within fifteen days from the date on which the order is communicated to him present an appeal in writing to the Collector of the district: Provided that in computing the period prescribed above, the time properly taken in obtaining a copy of the order complained of shall be excluded.” “21 (1-a)-Every petition for appeal shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the order to which objection is made unless the authority to which the petition is made dispenses with its production.” ''21 (2)-The Collector shall then send for the record of the case from the Controller and after perusing such record and making such further enquiry as he may think fit, either personally or through the Controller, shall decide the appeal.” “21 (2-a)-The Collector may, either on his own motion at any time or on the application of any party interested made within ninety days of the passing of an order, review any order passed by himself or any of his predecessors in office and pass such order in reference thereto as he thinks fit so however that no order shall be varied or reversed unless notice has been given to the parties interested to appear and be heard in support of such order.” “21(3) The decision of the Collector and subject only to such-decision, an order of the Controller shall be final and no further appeal or revision or application for review shall lie from such decision to any authority whatsoever.” A perusal of clause 21 of the Rent Control Order discloses that while a provision for exclusion of time properly taken in obtaining a copy of order complained of while computing the period of limitation of 15 days prescrib-ed for filing an appeal is made, similar provision has not been made in sub-clause (2-a) which provides for filing of a review petition within 90 days of the passing of an order. Similarly clause 21(1) provides the date of com-munication of the order of Rent Controller as the starting point of limitation for the purpose of an appeal while clause (2-a) provides the day of passing of an order as the starting point of limitation for the purpose of an appeal. Referring to these two distinguishing features in the matter of filing of an appeal and an application for review under the Rent Control Order, it was held that time required for obtaining certified copy of the order of Rent Controller i. e. from 11–11–1980 till 5–12–1980 was not liable to be excluded for the purpose of counting of limitation of 90 days as provided in clause 21(2-a) of the Rent Control Order. 4. Shri Manohar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the provisions of section 12(2) of the Indian Limita- tion Act, 1963 were applicable to the filing of an application for review under clause 21 (2-a) of the Rent Control Order by virtue of the provisions of section 29(2) of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 and, therefore, the period requisite for obtaining a copy of the appellate order was liable to be exclud-ed. Referring to the “wording of section 12(2) of the Indian Limitation Act, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioners thatrequirement of filing of certified copy along with a review application was not a condition precedent for applicability of section 12(2) of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 and that the period spent in obtaining a certified copy of the order against which a review petition was sought to be filed was liable to be excluded even if clause 21(2-a) of the Rent Control Order did not require filing of a copy of appellate order along with a review petition. 5. Shri Bhangde, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, submitted that the provisions of section 4 to section 24 of the Indian Limita-tion Act were not applicable to proceedings under clause 21 of the Rent Control Order because though they were not expressly excluded by specific words used in the Rent Control Order, they were expressly excluded by implication. 5. Shri Bhangde, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, submitted that the provisions of section 4 to section 24 of the Indian Limita-tion Act were not applicable to proceedings under clause 21 of the Rent Control Order because though they were not expressly excluded by specific words used in the Rent Control Order, they were expressly excluded by implication. It was submitted that proviso to clause 21(1) of the Rent Control Order for exclusion of time properly taken in obtaining a copy of the rent control order in computings period of limitation of 15 days for filing an appeal thereunder was an indication of the express exclusion by implica-tion of the provisions of sections 4 to 24 of the Indian Limitation Act. Reliance was placed on a Supreme Court decision in the case of Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishra1 for the proposition that express exclu-sion within the meaning of section 29(2) of the Indian Limitation Act need not always be by specific words referring to the provisions of sections 4 to 24 of the said Act and it could also be by implication. The question involved in that case was as to whether section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act was applicable to an election petition under Representation of the People Act, 1951. In paragraph 17 of the Judgment, it was observed that section 6 of the Indian Limitation Act, which provided for extension of period of limita-tion till after the disability in the case of person who is either a minor, insane or idiot, was clearly inapplicable to an election petition which has to be filed in accordance with the provisions of Representation of the People Act, 1951. It was further found that the provisions of section 7 providing for cases in which one of the several persons jointly entitled to institute a suit or make an application is under disability and provisions of section 16 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 providing for effect of death of a person or before accrual of right to issue, were clearly inapplicable to election petition under Representation of the People Act, 1951. It was on this basis that it was held that the provisions of sections 4 to 24 were inapplicable to election petition under Representation of the People Act, 1951 and stood expressly excluded by implication. It was on this basis that it was held that the provisions of sections 4 to 24 were inapplicable to election petition under Representation of the People Act, 1951 and stood expressly excluded by implication. I do not see as to how this case can be of any help to the respondent for urging that the applicability of sections 4 to 24 of the Indian Limitation Act is expressly excluded by implication as required by section 29(2) of the said Act so far as the appeal and review proceedings under clause 21 of the Rent Control Order are concerned, one of the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 of the Indian Limitation Act could be said to be inapplicable to appeal or review proceedings under clause 21 of the Rent Control Order. 6. It was then argued that if such a construction is not, proviso to clause 21(1) of the Rent Control Order will be rendered otiose. Shri Bhangde, the learned counsel for respondent, submitted that section 12(2) of the Indian Limitation Act provided for exclusion of time requisite for obtain- ing a copy and if that was applicable to appeal proceedings under clause 21 of the Rent Control Order, it was not necessary to insert the proviso providing for exclusion of time properly taken for obtaining a copy of the Rent Control Order for the purpose of filing an appeal. A close look at the wording of section 12(2) of the Indian Limitation Act and proviso to clause 21(1) of the Rent Control Order will disclose that what is excluded under the former is “time requisite” while what is excluded under the latter is “time properly taken” in obtaining a copy of the order complained of. These two expressions cannot be equated and I am of the opinion that proviso to clause 21(1) of the Rent Control Order providing for exclusion of “time properly taken” was made for enlarging the scope of “time requisite” for obtaining a copy as contemplated by section 12(2) of the Indian Limita- tion Act, 1963. Shri Bhangde submitted that the expression “time properly taken” was a narrower expression than “time requisite”. We are not con- cerned here with the question as to which of the expressions is of wider import. Shri Bhangde submitted that the expression “time properly taken” was a narrower expression than “time requisite”. We are not con- cerned here with the question as to which of the expressions is of wider import. What we are concerned is as to whether both the expressions mean the same thing and on this question there is no dispute that both are not of the same meaning. Once it is agreed that the two expressions mean two different things, insertion of proviso to clause 31(1) of the Rent Control Order cannot be termed as otiose even if sections 4 to 24 of the Indian Limitation Act are applicable to appeal and review proceedings under clause 21 of the Rent Control Order. 7. It is clear that the provisions of section 12(2) of the Indian Limita- tion Act are applicable to review proceedings under clause 21(2-a) of the Rent Control Order and, therefore, application for review filed by petitioner was not barred by limitation. Even if clause 21 (2-a) of the Rent Control Order does not require a petitioner to file a copy of appellate order, for preparing a review petition, copy of appellate order is necessary and exclusion of time requisite for obtaining a copy under section 12(2) of the Indian Limitation Act is not restricted to those cases alone in which there is a requirement of filing of a copy of order complained of. 8. The result, therefore, is that the petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside and it is directed that the Deputy Collector Bhandara shall hear and decide Review Application No. 17/A-71(2) /80-S1 as far as possible before the end of March, 1982. Parties shall appear in his Court for the purpose of their review application on 15th February, 1982 without further notice. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed. -----