JUDGMENT :- This Writ Petition was taken up for final disposal. Submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner were heard on 6th January, 2010. On the same day, the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th respondents were heard. On 20th January, 2010, the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 7 to 10 were heard. Following question arises in this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

“Whether the period of limitation provided under Article 131 of the Limitation Act, 1963 will apply to a Revision Application filed under section 29(3) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, or whether such a Revision Application will be governed by the residuary Article 13 7 of the Limitation Act, 1963.”

2. The petitioner, who is the original plaintiff, filed a Revision Application under section 29(3) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act of 1947") before the Appeal Bench of the Court of Small Causes for challenging the judgment and order dated 10th March, 2005 passed by the trial Court. The revision application was filed in April, 2008. By the order impugned in this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Application for condonation of delay made by the petitioner was rejected by the Appeal Bench of the Court of Small Causes by holding that Article 131 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1963") will apply. The case of the petitioner was that Article 137 of the said Act of 1963 will apply and therefore, the period of limitation will be of 3 years. Therefore, a prayer for condonation of delay was made seeking condonation of delay of only 28 days.

3. Article 131 of the Limitation Act, 1963 reads thus :

Article Description of application Period of Time from which limitation period begins to run 131 To any Court for the Ninety days The date of the decree exercise of its powers of or order or sentence revision under the Code sought to be revised.

of Civil Procedure, 1908

(5 of 1908), or the Code

of Criminal Procedure,

1898 (5 of 1898).

Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 reads thus :-

Article Description of application Period of Time from which

limitation period begins to run

137 Any other application for Three years When the right to which no period of limitation apply accrues.

is provided elsewhere in this division.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that Article 131 of the said Act of 1963 is applicable only to revision applications filed invoking power of revision under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Code of 1908) or the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code of 1898"). He submitted that the said Article 131 will not apply to a revision application under section 29(3) of the said Act of 1947. He submitted that residuary Article 137 will apply. He placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivandrum vs. T P. Kunhaliumma, AIR 1977 SC 282. He also placed reliance on another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Vidyacharan Shukla vs Khuochand Baghel and others, AIR 1964 SC 1099. Lastly, he placed reliance on a decision of the learned Single Judge of Gujarat High Court in the case of Sumitraben Ratilal Shah and ors. vs. Meghraj Trikamdas and Co., 1979(XX) Gujarat Law Reporter 856 wherein it is held that the Revision Application under section 29(3) will be governed by residuary Article 137. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th respondents submitted that the Revision Application under section 29(3) is required to be treated as a revision application under the said Code of 1908 and, therefore, Article 131 of the said Act of 1963 will be applicable. The learned counsel a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document