T. BHASKAR RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed to quash the order of the District Judge-cum-Appellate tribunal under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 and the Rules at Srikakulam in LA. No. 36 of 1989 in A. T. A. No. 4 of 1989.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case are that the petitioner is the land-lord and the first respondent is the tenant. The petitioner filed A. T. C. No. 14 of 1983 for eviction of the first respondent from the petition schedule lands before the Special officer. The Special Officer allowed the petition directing eviction of the first respondent giving two months time and on 12-4-1989 the possession was delivered to the petitioner. The first respondent filed appeal along with a petition to condone the delay of three days in filing the appeal before the second respondent. The petitioner raised objection as to the maintainability of the petition under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act. The second respondent-District judge holding that the appellate authority under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra area) Tenancy Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as the Act , is a Court, entertained the appeal after condoning the delay. The District Judge held on merits that there was sufficient ground to condone the delay and allowed the petition. Against the said order, the present writ petition is filed.

( 3 ) THE writ petition was heard by a learned Single Judge. The learned Single judge referred the matter to a Division Bench in view of the conflicting decisions. That is how the matter came up before us.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Act is a self- contained Act and period of limitation for filing appeal againstany order of the special Officer is prescribed under the Act, that an appeal lies to the District judge as persona designata but not as a Court, that the District Judge acts as appellate tribunal under the Act and not as a civil Court, that the provisions of the Limitation Act are not applicable to the proceedings under the Act and that therefore the appellate Tribunal erred in condoning the delay while exercising powers under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the first respondent contended that though sec. l6 (2) says that appeal lies to the District Judge, the entire procedure followed by the District Judge is that of the civil Court, that the mention of district Judge does not mean that it is not a Court, that Sec. 5 of the Limitation act is applicable to the proceedings before a Court, that the Court below rightly condoned the delay and there are no merits in the writ petition and it is liable to be dismissed.

( 6 ) IN view of the rival contentions, the important question that arises for consideration is:"whether the District Judge on whom appellate powers are conferred under Sec. 16 (2) of the Act, has power to condone the delay in ling an appeal invoking the provisions of Sec. 5 read with Sec. 29 (2) of the limitation Act. "

( 7 ) THE Act is framed to provide for the payment of fair rent by cultivating tenants and for regulating the relations of landlords and cultivating tenants of agricultural lands and for matters connected therewith in the Andhra Area of the State of Andhra Pradesh. Section 16 of the Act provides for adjudication of disputes and appeal. Sub-section (2) of Section 16 says that against any order passed by the Special Officer under the Act an appeal shall lie to the District judge having jurisdiction, within thirty days of the passing of the order and the decision of the District Judge on such appeal shall be final. Thus, it is clearly stated that the appeal lies to he District Judge and not to the District Court. When district Judge is specifically used in the provision, whether it has to be construed as appellate tribunal or a Court is the question. Section 5 of the limitation Act provides that any appeal or application, except the application under Order 21 of C. P. C. , can be admitted after prescribed period, if the appel

Click Here to Read the rest of this document