Applicability of the provisions of Sections 12(2) and 29.

BALASUBRAHMANYAN J. :- This case comes before us on a reference by Swamikkannu J. The question is whether in a revision filed under Sec.25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960. the revision petitioner is entitled to exclude the time taken for obtaining a certified copy of the order of the appellate authority for purposes of limitation. Since the learned Judge felt some difficulty in the matter, he referred the question to be decided by a Bench.

2. Under the scheme of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control Act), proceedings in the first instance are heard and determined by the Rent Controller. Against any order passed by the Rent Controller, Sec.23 of the Rent Control Act provides for an appeal to an appellate authority. From an order passed by an appellate authority, a revision lies to this court under Sec.25 of the Rent Control Act. It has been held by the Supreme Court in a recent decision that notwithstanding the wide language used in describing the power of revision of the High Court under Sec.25 of the Act, that, in essence, is only a revisional jurisdiction and not an appellate jurisdiction. Section 25(2) provides for a period of limitation within which a revision petition can be filed before this Court. The same section also provides for a limited jurisdiction, in the High Court to allow further time under certain circumstances. The provisions regarding limitation in Sec.25 are cast in the following words-

"25 (2). Every application to the High Court for the exercise of its power under sub-sec. (1) shall be preferred within one month from the date on which the order or proceeding to which the application relates is communicated to the applicant;

Provided that the High Court may, in its discretion, allow further time not exceeding one month for the filing of any such application, if it is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for not preferring the application within the time specified in this sub-section."

3. The period of limitation prescribed in Sec.25(2) is one month from the date on which the appellate authority's order is communicated to the revision petitioner. The question is whether in calculating the period of one month the revision petitioner is entitled to exclude the time taken by him for obtaining a certified copy of the order of the appellate authority which is sought to be subjected to revision.

4. There is no express provision in Sec.25 of the Act which provides for the exclusion of the time taken for obtaining a certified copy. We may, however, refer to R.24 of the statutory rules, called the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules 1974, governing the procedure for furnishing certified copies. This rule lays down that any person affected by any order passed by the appellate authority acting under Sec.23 of the Act shall be entitled to be furnished with a copy thereof duly certified by the appellate authority on application. The rule further provides that the Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders made by the High Court in regard to the making of applications and the grant of certified copies shall so far as may be, apply to any applications filed and the grant of any copies to be furnished by the appellate authority under the Act.

5. It is convenient, at this stage, to refer to the procedure which has been prescribed by the Appellate Side Rules of this Court for proceedings in revision, O. 4 R.21 of the Appellate Side Rules 1965, provides that civil revision petitions under Sec.115 of the Code or any other enactment shall be accompanied among other things, by a certified copy of the decree or order which is to be revised and a certified copy of the judgement, if any, on which the decree is based as well as a certified copy of the judgement or order, if any, of the Court or Tribunal of the first instance.

6. It is, therefore, clear from the Rent Control Act and the Appellate Si