Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
G. N. DAS, DEBABRATA MOOKHERJEE
IMPERIAL BUCKET CO. , A FIRM - Appellant
Versus
BHAGWATI BASAK - Respondent
Civil Rule 2470 Of 1952
Decided On : APRIL 02, 1954
RENT CONTROL - Appeal - Limitation - Extension of time - Applicability of Section 12, Limitation Act - Special or local law - Complete Code - Interpretation of Section 29 (2) (a), Limitation Act - Certified copy of order - Necessity - Section 32 (1), Rent Control Act, 1948 - Rules framed thereunder.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner filed an application for fixation of standard rent under the West Bengal Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1948 (1948 Act). The Rent Controller passed an order fixing the standard rent. Petitioner filed an appeal against the order beyond the period prescribed under Section 32 (1) of the 1948 Act. The appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appeal was filed in time. Section 29 (2) (a), Limitation Act makes the provisions of Section 12, Limitation Act applicable to appeals preferred under Section 32 of the 1948 Act. The time required for obtaining a certified copy of the order of the Rent Controller can be excluded in computing the period of limitation for filing an appeal.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 12, Limitation Act is applicable to appeals preferred under Section 32 of the 1948 Act? 2. Whether the time required for obtaining a certified copy of the order of the Rent Controller can be excluded in computing the period of limitation for filing an appeal?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 29 (2) (a), Limitation Act makes the provisions of Section 12, Limitation Act applicable to suits, appeals, and applications unless expressly excluded. The 1948 Act is not a complete Code and the rules framed thereunder refer to other statutes. Therefore, Section 29 (2) (a), Limitation Act is applicable to appeals preferred under Section 32 of the 1948 Act. 2. Section 12, Limitation Act is unqualified and in all cases an appellant will have the benefit of Section 12 in case he annexed to the memorandum of appeal a certified copy of the judgment appealed from. The rules of the 1948 Act do not require the filing of a certified copy of the order of the Rent Controller, but this does not prevent the application of Section 12, Limitation Act.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, the Rule was made absolute, and the case was remitted to the District Judge for deciding the appeal on the merits in accordance with law.
( 1 ) THIS is an application in revision on behalf of a tenant and is directed against an order passed by Mr. R. C. Dutt Gupta, learned District Judge, Howrah, dated 16-8-1952.
( 2 ) THE facts shortly stated are that on 25-3-1949, the petitioner filed an application for fixation of standard rent in respect of the disputed premises under the provisions of the West Bengal Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1948, hereinafter called the 1948 Act. On 9-4-1951, the Rent Controller passed an order fixing the standard rent. It appears from the certified copy of the order of the Rent Controller which was filed in the court below that an application for a certified copy of the order was made on 10-4-1951. The copy was ready for delivery to the petitioner on 20-4-1951. The appeal against the order of the Rent Controller was filed on 15-5-1951. It was duly registered and it came on for hearing before Mr. R. K. Dutt Gupta, learned District Judge, Howrah. At that stage an objection was raised on behalf of the respondent to the appeal that the appeal had been filed out of time inasmuch as the time taken for obtaining a certified copy of the order of the Rent Controller could not be excluded, the provisions of Section 12, Limitation Act not being applicable to the appeal filed by the petitioner. The learned District Judge gave effect to the preliminary objection being of the opinion that the period prescribed for filing an appeal under Section 32 (1) of the 1948 Act which was 30 days was absolute and was not liable to an extension by virtue of the provisions of Section 12, Limitation Act.
( 3 ) AGAINST this order the petitioner moved this Court in revision and obtained the present Rule. The Rule came up for hearing before Chunder J. The learned Judge by an order dated 9-12-1952 referred the matter to a Division Bench. By a determination made by the Chief Justice this revision case has come up for hearing before us.
( 4 ) MR. Lahiri, learned Advocate for the petitioner, has contended that the learned District Judge was in error in his view that the appeal had been filed, out of time. Mr. Lahiri has contended, that the effect of Section 17 (3), West Bengal Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act of 1950, hereinafter called the 1950 Act, attracted the 'provisions contained In Section 32 (2) of the 1950 Act.
( 5 ) IN my opinion, this contention is not correct. Section 17 (3) of the 1950 Act only requires that the fixation of the standard rent should be made in accordance with the provisions of the 1950 Act even though the application for fixation of the standard rent might have been filed while the 1948 Act was in operation. Section 17 (3) does not make the whole of the 1950 Act applicable to proceedings for fixation of rent started while the 1948 Act was in force. This view was taken by a Bench of this Court in the case of -- 'p. C. Guha v. B. A. Basil'. In that case it was pointed out that Section 17 (3) was limited in its application and did not make the 1950 Act wholly retrospective in its operation. It was further held that the forum of appeal against an order fixing the standard rent made on an application while the 1948 Act was in operation would be governed by the provisions of the 1948 Act.
( 6 ) EVEN conceding that Section 32 (2) of the 1950 Act was attracted, this would not assist the petitioner in the present case. Section 32 (2) of the 1950 Act is in these terms: "such appeal shall be filed within 30 days of the order of the Controller excluding the day of the order and such time as is required for obtaining a certified copy of the order. "
( 7 ) THE expression "such appeal" refers to an appeal contemplated by Section 32 CD of the 1950 Act. The appeal contemplated by Section 32 CD of the 1950 Act refers to an appeal made on an order made by the Rent Controller in proceedings initiated after the 1950 Act came into operation. The result is that even if Section 32 (2) was attracted, the petitioner can derive no
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
