Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 992 (AP)

Nanik Ram v. Bavarlal (died) by LRs.

2004-09-13

S.R.K.PRASAD

body2004
S. R. K. PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, who has presented this L. R. petition in CRP No. 889 of 2002, contends that there is no period of limitation prescribed for bringing legal representatives in the revision. She placed reliance on the decision reported in nathooram Kapoor v. E. Harbansilal Tuli, air 1982 AP 278 . The relevant portion at paras 3 and 4 read as follows:"3. This petition for bringing on record legal representatives which appeared to be within small confines has latent wide dimensions and the learned Counsel on either side focused upon all possible facets touching the issue. As the center is upon Rule 19 of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control rules, 1961, it is necessary to extract the same. "19. Every application for making the legal representative or, as the case may be, the legal representatives of a deceased person party to a proceeding under the Act shall be preferred within thirty days from the date of the death of the person concerned. Explanation: For the purpose of this rule (1) xx xx (2) An application may be admitted after the period specified in this rule, if the applicant satisfies the Controller or Appellate Authority that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period". Section 22 of the Rent Control Act does not prescribe any limitation for filing the revision Petition. In the decision reported in s. Nagabhushanam v. V. Raghavayya, (1968) i An. WR 106 = AIR 1968 AP 70 , this Court held that in view of the expression "at any time" used in Section 22 of the Rent control Act, the revision petition can be filed at any time without any fetter or limitation and Rule 41-A of the appellate side rules prescribing limitation for revisions does not apply to the revisions filed under this Act. In view of the fact that there is absolutely no limitation for filing revision petition itself, it is anomalous to say that the limitation is contemplated under the rules regarding the petition to bring on record the legal representatives in the event of death of either of the parties. In view of the fact that there is absolutely no limitation for filing revision petition itself, it is anomalous to say that the limitation is contemplated under the rules regarding the petition to bring on record the legal representatives in the event of death of either of the parties. It is not without context or relevance to say at this juncture that the revision petitions under mis Act or under C. P. C. , or other enactments are generally contemplated to have a supervisory jurisdiction over the orders of proceedings under the Act and correct the same and with a view to effectively implement this object, the time for filing such revision petition is enlarged. Under this Act, it was thought fit that no time limit should be prescribed for correcting the manifest errors in the orders or proceedings that may be brought to the surface. Rule 19 prescribes a period of limitation of 30 days from the date of the death of the deceased for bringing on record legal representatives. Rule 19 read in isolation is susceptible to the interpretation that the petition has to be filed within 30 days of the date of the death of the person in all proceedings under the Act. However, Rule 2 of the explanation appended to Rule 19 makes an inroad into this provision by providing that the application may be admitted after the expiry of 30 days provided sufficient cause is made out for the delay and this satisfaction of the delay is confined to the application before the Controller or the appellate Authority. In view of the specific mention of the Controller or Appellate authority, the revisional authority is excluded. Therefore, Rule 19 in conjunction with clause 2 of explanation makes it abundantly clear that the application for bringing on record the legal representatives and the follow up of such provision by application for condonation of the delay are confined only to the proceedings before the primary authority and the Appellate Authority only. As contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, this provisions is also analogous to Order 22, C. P. C. , which is confined to suits and appeals only but not revision petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision of the madras High Curt reported in Manickam v. Ramanathan, AIR 1949 Mad. As contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, this provisions is also analogous to Order 22, C. P. C. , which is confined to suits and appeals only but not revision petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision of the madras High Curt reported in Manickam v. Ramanathan, AIR 1949 Mad. 435,wherein it is held that neither Order 22, C. P. C. , nor the limitation Act applies to the civil revision petitions and therefore, the question of abatement of revision petitions does not arise. The view of the Lahore High Court in mohd. Sadaat Ali v. Lahore Corpn. , AIR 1949 Lah. 186 (FB) and Rajasthan High court in Babulal v, Mannilal, AIR 1953 Raj. 169 (FB), is to the same effect. This Court in hari Kishan Singh v. B. Narayana, 1971 (1) alt 29, held that without offending the special provisions made under a special enactment, the provisions of C. P. C. , can be applied in a situation where no specific or adequate provision is made under the Act or rules. Clause 2 of explanation to Rule 19 is sufficiently eloquent to exclude revision petition from the brackets of limitation and even if the Act and Rules are construed to be silent. or inadequate, the same position prevails under C. P. C. , also in respect of revisions. 4. The learned Counsel for the respondent contended that Rule 19 fixes a period of limitation of thirty days in respect of the entirety of the proceedings under the Act and as such, the limitation prescribed under rule 19 is applicable to the petitions in the revision petitions also. According to the learned Counsel, the wide language employed in Rule 19 is not abridged or coloured by clause 2 of explanation and the exception is carved out by Clause 2 in respect of proceedings before the Rent Controller or appellate Authority. It is further contended that Section 30 (2) (e) of the Rent Control Act confers power on the rule making authority to make rules regarding the application for bringing legal representatives of the deceased persons in proceedings under the act and the time within which such applications shall be preferred and pursuant to this power, the rule making authority framed Rule 19 covering all the proceedings under the Act and an exception is made to this by clause (2) of the explanation. It is contended that the rule-making authority cannot be attributed of silence or exclusion regarding the revision petitions. I am not inclined to agree with the contentions of the learned Counsel for the respondent. Bearing in mind the principle of harmonious construction, Rule 19 should be interpreted as lifting the bar of limitation in respect of revision petitions as otherwise, it leads to an anomalous situation of the rule casting cloud on the width of Section 22. Clause (2) of the explanation to Rule 19 furnishes a clue to the interpretation of the entire Rule 19 as it explains the limited coverage of Rule 19. Further, the rule making authority cannot be attributed with an intention to deny tile benefit of condonation of delay in respect of applications in revision petitions only. The construction which lands the rule contrary to or deviation from the intent embodies in section 22 should be avoided. " ( 2 ) IT is clear from a perusal of the principles enunciated in the aforesaid decision that no limitation is prescribed for preferring any revision under the Rent control Act. Does it mean the revision can be preferred at any time. Does the Legislature contemplate preferring or entertaining revisions after long lapse of time? Section 24 of the Act empowers the person to initiate proceedings by or against the legal representative in the event of death of the party. It is stated in clause (2) of Section 24 of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and eviction) Control Act, 1960 that any application, appeal or other proceedings could be preferred under this Act, by or against any person, such application, appeal or other proceeding, may, in the event of death of the party, be made, preferred or taken by or against his legal representatives. Rule 19 of A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and eviction) Control Rules, 1961 prescribes period of limitation of thirty days for bringing legal representatives on record. Rule 19 (2) mentions that application can be admitted after expiry of the period of limitation if the applicant satisfies the Controller or Appellate authority that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within the time. These rules and the provisions under the act are silent with regard to the applicability of period of limitation to the revisions preferred before the High Court. There appears to be a big lacuna under the Act. These rules and the provisions under the act are silent with regard to the applicability of period of limitation to the revisions preferred before the High Court. There appears to be a big lacuna under the Act. In fact, limitation is prescribed for preferring revisions under Section 115 of the Code of civil Procedure. When such is the case, it cannot be said that provisions under the rent Control Act stand on high pedestal than the proceedings initiated under the Code of Civil Procedure. After all the Tribunals are created under the Rent Control Act and if any revision is to be preferred, it cannot be left without prescribing the limitation. It is a fit case where the Registrar (Judicial) has to examine whether limitation has to be prescribed for preferring revision as well as for filing LR application before this court immediately since it is likely to yield negative results and allows the party to have his leisurely time to bring legal representatives and it will be impossible for any Court to render quick justice. ( 3 ) IN that view of the matter, I am of considered view that the matter has to be placed by the Registrar (Judicial) with a direction to place before the Hon ble Chief justice in order to get the rules amended on the limitation prescribed for preferring revisions under Miscellaneous Acts and also prescribing limitation for filing L. R. application. ( 4 ) HENCE, I order notice to the proposed legal representatives.