JUDGMENT - R.M. LODHA, J.:---One of the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the review application filed by the respondents (for short 'the tenant') before the Resident Deputy Collector, Amravati, for reviewing the order dated 9-8-1989 was hopelessly time barred but despite that the Reviewing Authority did not consider the question of limitation and allowed the review application filed by the tenant and thus the order passed by the Resident Deputy Collector, Amravati, in review application on 31-5-1990 deserves to be quashed and set aside.

2. Since the writ petition can be disposed of on the aforesaid contention, the facts in details need not be adverted to and suffice it to say that the petitioner (for short 'the landlord') made an application under Clause 13(3)(vi) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (for short 'the Rent Control Order') before the Rent Controller, Amravati, on 11-6-1984. The case set out in the application by the landlord was that the premises in question comprising of two rooms shops situated on Morshi Road near Jaistambha, bearing Municipal House No. 508/19 in Ward No. 43 of Amravati Town, were required by the petitioner for opening a showroom of rubber product. The application was contested by the tenant and the Rent Controller after holding enquiry by an order dated 23-5-1988 rejected the application of the landlord under Clause 13(3)(vi) of the Rent Control Order. The landlord carried the order passed by the Rent Controller in appeal before the Resident Deputy Collector, Amravati, under Clause 21(1) of the Rent Control Order. The Appellate Authority heard the appeal and by an order dated 9-8-1989 allowed the appeal, set aside the order passed by the Rent Controller dated 23-5-1988 and granted permission to the landlord to issue quit notice to the tenant under Clause 13(3)(vi) of the Rent Control Order. This time, the tenant made an application under Clause 21(2-a) of the Rent Control Order before the Resident Deputy Collector, Amravati, for review of the order dated 9-8-1989. The application for review was made by the tenant before the Resident Deputy Collector, Amravati, on 26-2-1990. In opposing the review application, the landlord raised the objection that the review application was time barred. This objection about limitation raised by the landlord is duly reflected from the impugned order and in para 3 of the order, this objection has been noted by the Resident Deputy Collector. However, without considering the objection of limitation raised by the landlord the Resident Deputy Collector allowed the review application and set aside the order passed by his predecessor on 9-8-1989.

3. Clause 21(2-a) of the Rent Control Order reads as under :

"21(2-a). The Collector may, either on his own motion at any time or on the application of any party interested made within ninety days of the passing of an order, review any order passed by himself or any of his predecessors-in-office and pass such order in reference thereof as he thinks fit so however that no order shall be varied or reversed unless notice has been given to the parties interested to appear and be heard in support of such order."

4. It would be seen that the power of review has been conferred on the Appellate Authority, viz., the Collector to review the order either passed by himself or his predecessors-in-office on his own motion or on the application filed by person interested. If the Collector on his own proceeds to review the order passed by him or his predecessors-in-office, no limitation is prescribed under sub-clause (2-a) of Clause 21 of the Rent Control Order, but if the party seeks review of the order of the Appellate Authority by making the application, such application is required to be made within 90 days of the passing of the order. Thus, sub-clause (2-a) of Clause 21 of the Rent Control Order prescribes limitation for making an application for review of the order passed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document