( 1 ) IN these matters, the question of condonation of delay is required to be decided along with interpretation of term "rent".

( 2 ) FIRST the facts are given in brief hereinbelow to appreciate the respective contention of the parties. On 1st April, 198 the premises in question was let out to m/s. Standard Pharmaceutical Ltd. 24, Park Street, Calcutta. The case of the plaintiff respondent was that after the lapse of 11 years, rent was increased from Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 2,500/- w. e. f. 1/04/1983 after and five years the rent was further increased to Rs. 3,000. 00 w. e. f. 1/04/1988. The plaintiff landlord by notice dated 5/01/1991 after the amended Rent Control Act came into force on 1/12/1988 - gave a notice and increased the rent by 10%. Consequently, the rent became Rs. 3,300. 00 per month w. e. f. 1/04/1991. The defendant paid the rent at the rate of Rs. 3,300. 00 per month upto 31/07/1991. Thereafter, they failed to pay the rent. The plaintiff filed a petition for eviction before the Rent controller. The proceedings before the Rent Controller continued. On 14/02/1994, the defendant in terms of Section 6a read with Section 8 of the D. R. C. Act gave a notice increasing the rent further by 10% from. Rs. 3,300/- per month to Rs. 3,630. 00 per month and filed the suit.

( 3 ) THE petitioner/tenant disputed the jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act and submitted that there was no cause of action. The petitioner denied that the rent was ever increased from Rs. 2,000. 00 to Rs. 3,300. 00. However, in para 1 of the reply of the written statement, the defendant petitioners mentioned his plea as under :-

"rent was fixed at Rs. 2,000. 00 and currently service charges Rs. 1,300. 00 are being paid in addition to the report of Rs. 2,000. 00. Even if the rent is increased in terms of the provisions of the Delhi Rent Act then the increase will be effective on Rs. 2,000. 00 (rent part and not on service charges ). It is further relevant to mention that in the Eviction Petition pending before the ARC the plaintiffs herein have not demanded any increase under the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act which has been sought to be invoked in the present plaint. The plaintiffs herein are regularly receiving rent at the rate of Rs. 2,000. 00 + Rs. 1,300. 00 per month as service charges. "

( 4 ) LEARNED senior counsel for the petitioner Mr. Pradeep Nandrajog was fair enough to state that the notice which purported to increase the rent by 10% dated 14/02/1994 was received but his contention is that if the rent was only Rs. 2,000. 00 then, at the most, the rent could be deemed to have raised to Rs. 2,200. 00 and even then the Civil Court would have no jurisdiction for the matter would still not fall within the jurisdiction Rent Controller for the purpose of eviction, for the application of Rent Control Act would not be excluded as Section 3 provides that it excludes only those premises whose monthly rent exceeds Rs. 3,500. 00 in terms of section 3 (c) on Delhi Rent Control Act and consequently, the suit itself was not maintainable.

( 5 ) I have heard the parties counsel I and have gone through the record

( 6 ) I take first question about condonation of delay. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Appellate Court should have condoned the delay of 55 days in filing the appeal for four reasons, firstly, the company was based at Calcutta, secondly, the delay was explained by the counsel by filing his own affidavit and thirdly, there was some confusion between 60 and 90 days for filing the appeal and further the Court should have allowed the parties to contest the matter on substantive grounds instead of refusing to hear on the ground of technicality of limitation.

( 7 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the delay has not been properly explained and as such, the learned Appellate Court was justified in refusing to entertain this application for condonation