( 1 ) THIS is a petition for revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 7-1-1977 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner as barred by time and also dismissing the application for condonation of delay filed before it under Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ).

( 2 ) IT appears that the petitioner had filed a suit for possession and recovery of Rs. 434. 00 as damages at the rate of Rupees 60. 00 p. m. for the period 1-2-1975 to 31-8-1975, and also for recovery of Rupees 14. 00 as water charges for the same period at the rate of Rs. 2. 00 per month against the respondents who are the legal representatives of one Om Prakash Kaura.

( 3 ) THE case of the petitioner in the plaint was that Om Prakash Kaura was his tenant in respect of a room in house No. 16/10181-82, Gurdwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The petitioner terminated the tenancy of Om Prakash Kaura by notice dated 1-1-1970 and thereafter Om Prakash became a statutory tenant. Om Prakash died on 16-3-1975 and at the time of his death he was in possession of the said room as statutory tenant and now the legal representatives (respondents) are in illegal occupation of the premises in dispute,

( 4 ) THE respondents contested the suit, inter alia, on the ground that the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit as there exists relationship of landlord rod tenant between the parties and the defendant-respondents had inherited tenancy rights of their father who was a contractual tenant in the suit premises and the tenancy of Om Prakash was never terminated.

( 5 ) FROM the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court had, inter alia framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the civil court has got no jurisdiction in the case? (2) Whether the plaintiff legally terminated the tenancy of Om Prakash? If go, its effect?

( 6 ) THE issue relating to the question whether the civil Court has got no jurisdiction in the case was treated as a preliminary issue and the learned trial Court by order dated 7-4-1976 took the view that the respondents has inherited the tenancy rights of deceased Om Prakash and, therefore, they are tenants of the plaintiff and thus the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit.

( 7 ) AFTER giving the aforesaid finding, the learned trial Court directed that the plaint be returned to the plaintiff to be filed in the proper Court,

( 8 ) AGAINST the aforesaid order of the learned trial Court, the. petitioner filed a petition for revision in this Court on 3-9-1976 purporting to be under Sec. 115 Civil Procedure Code.

( 9 ) THE dealing assistant in the Registry of this Court took an objection that it should be stated as to how the "c. R. P. " is maintainable against the impugned order whereas remedy of appeal is available under the provisions of O. 43, Rule 1 (a) Civil Procedure Code and stated that it should be correctly specified. This objection was approved by the Deputy Registrar concerned on 7-9-1976 and the petition was directed to be returned to be refiled within a week. The petitioner through his counsel lcv, received back the revision petition from the Registry on 13-10-1976 and instead of replying to the objections raised by the Registry filed an appeal before the Court of the District Judge, Delhi, against the aforesaid order of the learned trial Court dated 7-4-1976. The learned counsel presented the original revision petition itself before the Court of the District Judge and requested that the revision petition be treated as appeal. Along with the appeal, an application under Sections 5 and 14 of the Act read with Section 151 of the Code was filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and for treating the revision petition as an appeal and the grounds of revision petition to be treated as grounds of appeal.

( 10 ) THE aforesaid application along with the original revision petition was filed in the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document