Judgment :- 1. This was referred to a Division Bench by our learned brother Sukumaran, J. The main question that falls for decision is whether the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, would apply to the proceedings initiated by the Appellate Authority constituted under S.18 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, (the Rent Control Act). The learned Subordinate Judge (Appellate Authority under the Rent Control Act) held that those provisions were not applicable to appeals filed under S.18 of the Rent Control Act. In revision, the District Judge held that S.12 of the Limitation Act would apply. The facts are not in dispute, and could be stated as follows:-The order appealed against was passed by the Rent Controller on 19-9-1981. The respondent applied for a certified copy of the order on 14-10-1981. Sheets were called for by the Rent Controller on 29-6-1982, and were produced by the appellant on 2-7-1982. The copy was ready on 15-7-1982, and the appellant was asked to appear on 18-7-1982. The respondent received the copy on 24-7-1982; and the appeal was filed on 2-8-1982. S 18 of the Rent Control Act, so far as it is relevant for our purpose, provides as follows: "18. Appeal: (1) (a) The Government may, by general or special order notified in the Gazette, confer on such officers and authorities not below the rank of a Subordinate Judge the powers of appellate authorities for the purpose of this Act in such areas or in such classes of cases as may be specified in the order. (b) Any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Rent Control Court, may, within thirty days from the date of such order, prefer an appeal in writing to the appellate authority having jurisdiction. In computing the thirty days aforesaid, the time taken to obtain a certified copy of the order appealed against shall be excluded. (4) The appellate authority shall have all the powers of the Rent Control Court including the fixing of arrears of rent. (5) The decision of the appellate authority, and subject to such decision, an order of the Rent Control Court shall be final and shall not be liable to be called in question in any Court of law, except as provided in S.20." Evidently the appeal was filed out of time prescribed under S.18 of the Rent Control Act. (5) The decision of the appellate authority, and subject to such decision, an order of the Rent Control Court shall be final and shall not be liable to be called in question in any Court of law, except as provided in S.20." Evidently the appeal was filed out of time prescribed under S.18 of the Rent Control Act. The question was whether by the application of the provisions of S.12 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the appeal could be deemed to have been filed within time. A Full Bench of this Court in Vareed v. Mary (1968 KLT. 583) held that it is clear from the relevant provisions of the Act that the Rent Control Courts as well as the appellate authorities are special Tribunals created by the statute and do not form part of the hierarchy of the established Civil Courts of the State. Another Full Bench of this Court in Jokkim Fernandez v. Amina Kunhi Umma (1973 KLT. 138) held that the Limitation Act, 1963, applied only to courts and prescribed periods of limitation in respect of suits, appeals and applications filed only in courts. Yet another Full Bench of this Court in Commr. of Agrl. Incometax v. Thalayar Rubber Industries Ltd. (1981 KLT 398) held that S.5 and 14 of the Limitation Act could be relied on for extension of time in respect of a proceeding in court and not before a Tribunal or other authority under any local or special law; and S.12 of the Act, on the other hand, related to the computation of the period of limitation and did not restrict its scope and applicability to proceedings in court alone. On its terms, the provisions of S.12(2) would apply for exclusion of the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree, sentence or order, in computing the period of limitation for an appeal or application. The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to invoke S.5 and 14 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in presenting an application under sub-section (1) of S.60 of the Agricultural Incometax Act. The Supreme Court in Udayan Chinubhai v. R. C. Bali (AIR. 1977 SC. 2319), in Para.16 and 17, laid down as follows: "16. It is exactly this question which has now been presented before us for decision. The Supreme Court in Udayan Chinubhai v. R. C. Bali (AIR. 1977 SC. 2319), in Para.16 and 17, laid down as follows: "16. It is exactly this question which has now been presented before us for decision. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that under the new S. (12) 2, in calculating the time requisite for obtaining the certified copy of the decree, the time which elapsed prior to signing of the decree should also be excluded under S.12(2) notwithstanding that the application for certified copy was made after the preparation of the decree. 17. Relying on the new S.12(2) read with the Explanation of the 1963 Act, it is not possible to accept the submission that in computing the time requisite for obtaining the copy of a decree by an application for copy made after preparation of the decree the time that elapsed between the pronouncement of the judgment and the signing of the decree should be excluded. The Explanation does not countenance such a construction of S.12(2). It is to set at rest the difference of views amongst the High Courts that the Explanation was introduced and it is not permissible now to allow the same controversy to be perpetuated even after the 1963 Act." The revision petitioner's case is stronger in this case inasmuch as whereas the order was passed on 18-9-1981, the application for certified copy was made only on 14-10-1981, after the expiry of the period of thirty days for filing the appeal prescribed under S.18(1) (b) of the Rent Control Act. Moreover, the Act or the Rules does not contemplate a separate decree and judgment, but only an order and, therefore, the Explanation to S.12 of the Limitation Act also cannot help the respondent. 2. For the foregoing reasons we allow the revision setting aside the order passed by the District Court and restoring the order of the Appellate Authority under the Rent Control Act. No costs. Allowed.