JUDGMENT - S.K. SHAH, J.:---The learned Single Judge dealing with this writ petition by his order dated 25th September 1997, has made this reference on a issue whether the Appellate Authority under the C.P. Berar Letting of Premises (Houses) and Rent Control Order, 1949 is a "Court" to which the provisions of section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act apply.

2. This Reference has occasioned because of the divergent views of different Benches of this Court on the point.

3. In the present petition, the Rent Controller had passed an order in favour of the present petitioner granting him permission to issue notice to the respondent/tenant for eviction from the rent premises under the provisions of the C.P. Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949 (for short, the "C.P. Berar Rent Control Order, 1949"). The respondent had preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority under section 21 of the C.P. Berar Rent Control Order, 1949 being the Additional Collector, Nagpur and since there was delay in filing of the appeal, the respondent had filed an application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act. By the impugned order dated 23rd October 1996, the Additional Collector, Nagpur condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The present writ petition has been filed against the said order. The same landlord, as the petitioner, has also filed similar writ petition, being Writ Petition No. 534 of 97 against the similar order passed by the Additional Collector, Nagpur condoning the delay in filing appeal before him by another tenant against whom the petitioner/landlord has obtained order of permission to issue notice of eviction from the Rent Controller.

4. As the matter came up for hearing, it was noticed that number of such writ petitions have been filed against the order passed by the Additional Collector, Nagpur either granting the application for condonation of delay or refusing the same on the ground that he had no jurisdiction under section 5 of the Limitation Act. All those petitions were ordered to be joined with this petition as the common question of law has arisen. Those writ petition are, Writ Petitions No. 1106 of 98, 244 of 97, 1927 of 98, 1967 of 98, 2083 of 98, 217 of 98, 2659 of 98, 2781 of 98, 2782 of 98 and 3903 of 99 all of which have been filed by the tenant as the Rent Control Appellate Authority, viz, the Additional Collector, Nagpur refused to pass any order on the tenants' application for condonation of delay for want of jurisdiction. Lastly, Writ Petition No. 1981 of 98 has been filed by the landlord against the order passed by the Additional Collector on 18-12-1997 holding that he had no jurisdiction to pass an order for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the order, passed by Rent Controller refusing the permission to issue quit notice to the tenant.

5. All these writ petitions have occasioned as a result of the ruling of this Court in the case of (Dinesh Balkrishna Dande v. Bomani Radio Corporation and others)1, 1996(4) Bom.C.R. 236 in which the learned Single Judge of this Court took the view that the authority, viz. the Additional Collector, Nagpur exercising appellate powers under the Rent Control Order was not the "Court" and, therefore, he had no jurisdiction under section 5 of the Limitation Act to consider and decide the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

6. However, in earlier two judgments of this Court in the case of (Ranchoddas Atmaram Bairagi another v. Gupta Brass Stores others)2, reported in 1983 Mh.L.J. 933 (decided by V.A. Mohta, J.,--as he then was) and that in the case of (Bhagwantibai wd/o Shrigovind Agrawal v. Damodar Sheoprasad Agrawal)3, 1990 Mh.L.J. 1097 (decided by H.W. Dhabe, J.,---as he then was), view has been taken that the Appellate Authority exercising powers under section 21 of the C.P. Berar Rent Control Order, 1949 had jurisdiction to entertain and decide application for condonation of delay preferred und

Click Here to Read the rest of this document