YOGESHWAR DAYAL, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal has been filed by Miss Nirmal Chaudhary against the order dated 2nd August, 1977, passed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, dismissing the application filed by the appellant under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the certified copy of the order of the learned Addl. Rent Controller dated 31-1-1975 which was impugned before it by way of appeal from the said order of the learned Addl. Rent Controller.

( 2 ) THE learned Addl. Rent Controller had passed an order for ejectment dated 30-1-1976 against the appellant on the ground of non-payment of rent and held that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of section 14 (2) of the said Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called "the Act" ).

( 3 ) SINCE the order of the learned Addl. Rent Controller contemplated immediate eviction of the appellant, the appellant applied for certified copy of that order by an urgent application on 2-2-1976. The copy was not ready and the appellant accordingly filed an appeal without the certified copy but with true copy along with an application for exemption from filing certified copy.

( 4 ) THE appeal came up for admission before the learned Rent Control Tribunal on 13-2-1976. The appeal was admitted provisionally subject to the appellant filing the certified copy of the impugned order within time. The certified copy was ready for delivery on 8-3-1976 and also appears to have been delivered on the same date. The copy was, however, filed before the Rent Control Tribunal on 8th April, 1976.

( 5 ) THE appeal came up for hearing on 19th May, 1976 but was adjourned for arguments to 27th September, 1976. On 27th September, 1976, it was again adjourned to 17th January, 1977. On 17th January, 1977, the learned Tribunal happened to be on leave and the appeat was fixed for arguments on 26th May, 1977. On 26th May, 1977, the appellant was present in person without her counsel and the counsel for the respondent pointed out to the Tribunal that the appeal is barred by limitation whereupon the appellant prayed for time and the learned Tribunal adjourned it for arguments on the question of limitation to 20th July, 1977. On 20th July, 1977, counsel for the appellant, Shri S. K. Bhatia, was again absent and on request on his behalf, the question as to limitation was again adjourned to 21st July, 1977. On 21st July, 1977, Shri V. P. Prabhakar, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the appellant and stated that he had only been engaged on that date and prayed for time. The matter was again adjourned to 26th July, 1977.

( 6 ) IT appears that on 21st July, 1977 itself, Shri S. K. Bhatia, the counsel who had filed the appeal, presented an application before the Rent Control Tribunal under section 5 of the Limitation Act supported by an affidavit of his clerk, Rameshwar. In this application, it was averred that the appellant had applied for certified copy and her counsel had directed his clerk to file this copy within one month after deducting the days for obtaining the certified copy of the impugned order. It was also stated that the clerk, on account of bona fide mistake in understanding the instructions, miscalculated the time and filed the certified copy of the impugned order within one month from the date of the preparation of the copy and as a result there was delay of three days in filing certified copy of the impugned order. It was stated that the delay was not intentional but was, in the circumstances of the case, as explained above and thus there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing certified copy of the impugned order.

( 7 ) THE respondent filed a reply without any verification and unsupported by any affidavit.

( 8 ) IN the reply, it was stated that there was no question of the alleged instructions of the counsel because it was the duty of the counsel to have filed copy within time and the counsel could not have given instructions in the manner alleged. It was also

Click Here to Read the rest of this document