The Rent Control Court has the power to enlarge the time originally fixed or granted under S.11(2)(c) and S.23(1)(i) of the Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.

1. Respondent who is the landlord applied for evicting the petitioner-tenant under S.11 (2) (b) of the Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (which we will call the Act for short) on the ground that he was in arrears of rent. On February 26, 1974 the petitioner deposited in the Rent Control Court the rent till the end of that month for payment to the respondent However on February 28, 1974 the Rent Control Court passed an order of eviction on the ground that the amount deposited was insufficient as it did not cover the costs of the proceedings, adding a rider within S.11 (2) (c) that the petitioner could get the order vacated by making up the deficit amount within one month. The petitioner did not do this within the time but made an application I. A. 192 (A)/74 for vacating the order only on June 1, 1974, supporting it with an affidavit explaining the circumstances which led to the delay. He also deposited Rs. 3710 being the costs and the rent up to date The Rent Control Court dismissed the application in the view that it had no power to condone the delay and allow the application, as it was made only after the period of one month had expired This conclusion has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority and Revisional Court on substantially the same reasoning, dismissing the appeal and revision taken by the petitioner challenging the order of the Rent Control Court.

2. The revision filed by the petitioner has come before us pursuant to a reference made by a learned single judge for deciding whether in view of S.11(2)(b) and (c) and 23(1)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, the Rent Control Court, which is a persona designata has all the powers of a civil court under S 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with S.5 of the Limitation Act for the purpose of 'enlargement of time originally fixed or granted'. (See S.23(1) (i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act."

3. S.11(2) (b) lays down the circumstances under which the Rent Control Court can pass an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession on the ground of arrears of rent. The proviso that follows prescribes the conditions precedent to an application by the landlord for eviction. Clause (c) and S.23(1)(i) on whose interpretation the revision falls to be decided deserve to be quoted in full.

Cl. (c). "The order of the Rent Control Court directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building shall not be executed before the expiry of one month from the date of such order or such further period as the Rent Control Court may in its discretion allow; and if the tenant deposits the arrears of rent with interest and cost of proceedings within the said period of one month or such further period, as the case may be, it shall vacate that order"

S.23(1) "Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed the Accommodation Controller, the Rem Control Court and the appellate authority shall have the powers which are vested in a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), when trying a suit in respect of the following matters:

(a) to (h) omitted

(i) enlargement of time originally fixed or granted; 0) and (k) omitted".

4. That the Rent Control Court under the Act is a persona designata and not a civil court is clear and has been settled by the Full Bench decision Vareed v. Mary, 1968 KLT. 583, delivered by one of us (Eradi J.). The question before us is whether it has the power under S.11(2)(c) and S.23(1)(i) of the Act to enlarge the time originally fixed or granted in terms of S.11(2)(c) by the order dated February 28,1974, on an application made after expiry of that time. Although S.5 of the Limitation Act had been invoked by the petitioner before the Rent Control Court and it is mentioned in the order of reference, that Section in our view has no relevance, for the period of one month granted by the Rent Control Court is no period of limitation and the substance of the petitio