Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to revision petitions under Section 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and the period of limitation for such petitions is three years from the date when the right to apply accrues.

( 1 ) THE question for decision is : What is the period of limitation for filing a petition under Section 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act ). The petitioners-landlords filed an application for eviction of the respondent under Section 14 (1) (e) rsad with Section 25-B of the Act which was dismissed by the Controller on 29th April, 1978. An appeal filed before the Rent Control Tribunal on 3rd July, 1978 was dismissed on 10th January, 1980 on the ground that no appeal was maintainable under Section 25-B (8) of the Act. The petitioners applied for certified copy of the Controller s order on 11th January, 1980 and it was ready on 27th February, 1980. The present revision petition under Section 25-B (8) of the Act was filed on 17th May, 1980. An application C. M. No. 1724 of 1980) was also filed by the petitioners under Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act praying that the time spent for prosecuting the appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal be excluded and the delay in filing the revision be condoned.

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners contends that no period of limitation is prescribed for filing the revision petition under Section 25-B (8) of the Act in any of the Articles of the Limitation Act or anywhere else and as such he submits that Article 137 of the Limitation Act is applicable and therefore the present petition is within time. In the alternative he submits that the delay in filing the revision petition be condoned. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that the period of limitation for the exercise of revisional powers by a Civil Court is 90 days from the date of the order under Article 131 of the Limitation Act.

( 3 ) RULE 23 of the Delhi Rent Control Rules, 1959 provides that in deciding any question relating to procedure not specially provided by the Act and these rules, the Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal shall as far as possible be guided by the provisions contained in the CPC. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that as the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to the proceedings under the Rent Control Act, the present petition is deemed to have been filed under CPC. Section 25-B (8) of the Act reads : 25-B (8) : No appeal or second appeal shall lie against an order for the recovery of possession of any premises made by the Controller in accordance with the procedure specified in this section ; Provided that the High Court may, for the purpose of satisfying itself that an order made by the Controller under this Section is according to law call for the records of the case and pass such order in respect thereto as it thinks fit. "

( 4 ) UNDER Section 115 of the CPC , a revision lies against an order of a Subordinate court. The Rent Controller is not a court and therefore it seems that a revision under Section 115 of the Code is not maintainable. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the petitioners that there is a specific provision as contained in the proviso to subsection (8) of Section 25 of the Act for the exercise of the revisional process by this court to satisfy itself that the order made by the Controller is in accordance with law. The revisional powers under this section are wider than the revisional powers under Section 115 of the Code. It therefore appears that the revision as provided in Section 25-B (8) of this Act is a special right conferred upon the party to approach the court and that such a revision is not a. revision under CPC. Under Article 131 of the Limitation is 90 days from the date of Act, limitation order to be revised by means of an application to any court for the exercise of its power of revision under Civil Procedure Code or the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. As the present revision is not under CPC, 1908, Article 131 of tho Limitation Act is not attracted. Now the question is which other Article of the Limitation Act is applicable. Prior to the Limitation Act, 1963 there w