Judgment

CHANDRACHUD, J. - The appellant Mahant Bikram Dass Chela, filed two applications for eviction of respondents 4 to 6 (hereinafter called `the respondents) on the ground that they had committed default in the payment of rent. A compromise was arrived at between the parties on March 31, 1959, under which it was agreed that the respondents should pay to the appellant a sum of Rupees 11,872 by March 31, 1959 and the balance of six monthly instalments of Rs.1,000/- each. Respondents committed default in the payment of future instalments, upon which the appellant filed two applications on April 2, 1962 for their ejectment on the ground that they had failed to pay rent without sufficient cause. One of these applications covered an area of 117 Kanals and the other of 76 Kanals odd.

2. These applications were dismissed first by the Assistant Collector and in appeal by the Collector. The appellant then filed revision applications to the Commissioner, who, on March 1, 1965 made a recommendation to the Financial Commissioner to the effect that the orders of the Collector and the Assistant Collector be aside and a decree for ejectment be passed against the respondents. By his order dated November 26, 1965 the Financial Commissioner accepted the recommendation with regard to the area of 76 kanals and passed a decree evicting the respondents from that land. That order has become final.

3. In the other Revision pertaining to 117 Kanals, the Financial Commissioner by an order dated November 4, 1965 held that the ejectment petition filed by the appellant had become infructuous in view of the fact that the land was acquired by the Amritsar Improvement Trust, which had already taken possession thereof. According to the Financial Commissioner, since the Improvement Trust had taken possession of the land, respondents ceased to be tenants and the question of their ejectment did not arise for consideration.

4. The appellant then filed a Civil Writ No. 1146 of 1966, in the Punjab & Haryana High Court, challenging the decision of the Financial Commissioner. The Writ Petition was dismissed by a learned single Judge, against which the appellant filed an appeal under Cl. 10 of the Letters Patent to a Division Bench of the High Court.

5. The Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition on November 27, 1970. The Memorandum of the Letters Patent Appeal against that judgment was lodged by the appellant on December 23, 1970, which was within 30 days from the date of the judgment appealed from. The Letters Patent appeal came up for admission on February 24, 1971 when the Division Bench directed that a notice be issued to the respondents in regard to the admission of the appeal. After completion of the record of the appeal, the matter was placed for hearing before a Division Bench, when the respondents raised an objection that the appeal was barred by limitation on the ground that though the memorandum of appeal was filed within 30 days of the date of the judgment of the single Judge it was not accompanied by three sets of documents which are required to be filed under the rules of the High Court. Counsel for the appellant then asked for an adjournment for filing an application under S. 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the delay. Notice of the condonation application was given to the respondents and on hearing them, the Court framed seven questions and referred them for the opinion of a Full Bench. The questions, as they read, do not seem to call for such special treatment but it appears that though the matters in dispute relate to procedural regulations, learned Judges of the High Court had taken differing views which necessitated the reference to a Full Bench.

6. The Full Bench answered those questions by a judgment dated March 19, 1974 and remitted the appeal to the Division Bench for final disposal in the light of the answers given by it. It also directed the Division Bench to deal with the application filed by the appellant for condonation of th