The provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act are applicable to proceedings before the Rent Controller exercising powers under the Rent. Control Act.

RAMACHANDRA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE question that arises in this revision petition filed under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. 1960 (Act IV of 1960 ). is whether the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act (hereinafter called the Act), are applicable to proceedings before the Rent Controller exercising powers under the Rent. Control Act. The question arises on the following facts.

( 2 ) THE petitioner herein filed the application H. R. C. No. 95/1972 on the file of the House Rent Controller. Vijayawada, for eviction of the respondent from a non-residential building. The application was ordered ex parte on 19-7-1972 and possession was taken over by evicting the respondent on 9-9-1972. The respondent filed the petition. I. A. No. 4518 of 1972 under Section 5 of the Act. on 15-9-1972 for condoning the delay in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte order of eviction. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was alleged by the respondent that he had no notice of the eviction petition, that no such notice was served on him, that until 9-9-1972 on which date he was forcibly evicted, he was not aware of the order of eviction passed against him and that the landlord had in fact come to his shop on 7-9-1972 and received rent but he did not disclose that he had obtained an order of eviction on 19-7-1972 and therefore the ex parte order should be set aside after condoning the delay in filing the petition.

( 3 ) THIS petition was opposed by the landlord alleging that the respondent refused every notice issued from Court, that he was called on 19-7-1972 but he was absent and therefore he was set ex parte that the respondent did not raise any objection to the said proceedings taken on 9-9-1972 and that there were no valid reasons made out for condoning the delay and setting aside the ex parte order.

( 4 ) THE Rent Controller condoned the delay and allowed the petition subject to the respondent paving a sum of Rs -. 10/- to the petitioner as costs.

( 5 ) THE petitioner carried the matter in appeal to the learned Subordinate Judge. Vijayawada, and the order of the Rent Controller was confirmed and the appeal dismissed. Hence the revision petition.

( 6 ) SRI N. Rajeswara Rao. the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Rent Controller is not a "court" and therefore Section 5 of the Act, is not applicable to the case. The submission of the learned counsel is that under Rule 8 (3) of the rules framed under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, an ex parte order can be set aside on the affected partys filing of an application within 30 days from the date of pronouncement of the order in open Court, that there is no provision made under the rules for condoning the delay in filing such an application, and that the provisions of Section 5 of the Act are not made applicable to the proceedings under the Rent Control Act and hence the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to entertain an application filed under Section 5 of the Act.

( 7 ) ON the other hand, it is contended by Sri J. V. Suryanaravana Rao, the learned counsel for the respondent that the Rent Controller exercising powers under the Rent Control Act, is a "court" within the meaning of Section 5 of the Act and by virtue of Section 29 (2) of the Act, the provisions of Section 5 are applicable to proceedings under the Rent Control Act, and in support of this submission, the learned counsel invited my attention to the several rulings of this Court and of the Supreme Court.

( 8 ) ON a consideration of all the rival contentions, I think the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the Rent Controller is a Court and that the provisions of Section 5 of the Act, are applicable to proceedings under the Rent Control Act, has to be accepted.

( 9 ) IN K. Chalapathi Rao v. B. N. Reddy, (1968) 2 Andh WR 587 a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Narasimham,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document