Permissibility for exclusion of strike period.

Srinivasan, J.

1. This petition for condonation of delay of 33 days in filing the revision petition has been posted before me on an office note objection to the maintainability thereof.

2. The petitioner who suffered an order of eviction in R.C.O.P.No. 46 of 1984, District Munsif's Court, Devakottai, preferred an appeal R.C.A.3 of 1985 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Devakottai. The appeal was dismissed on 27.6.1988. The petitioner filed an application for certified copies on 4.8.1988 and they were ready on 17.8.1988. The petitioner presented the C.R.P.on 12.9.1988. In this Court along with a petition to condone the delay of 33 days.

3. Under Section 25(2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (XVIII of 1960) as amended by Art XXIII of 1973, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' an application to this Court for the exercise of its power of revision under Sub-section (1) of Section 25 shall be preferred within one month from the date on which the order of the appellate authority is communicated to the appellant. There is a proviso to Sub-section 2 of Section 25 of the Act which gives a discretion to this Court to allow further time not exceeding one month for the filing of revision application if the Court is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient means for not preferring the application within the time specified in the sub-sections.

4. In this view, there is no dispute that the order of the Appellate Authority was communicated to the petitioner on 27.6.1988 as the order was pronounced in open Court after due notice. Hence, the revision would have been preferred in the normal course on or before 27.7.1988 and this Court would have granted further time till 26.8.1988 if the applicant had sufficient cause. But, in Rajaratnam v. Rajammal 95 L.W. 76, a Division Bench of this Court has held that Section 12 of the Limitation Act will apply and the time requisite for obtaining certified copies of the order of the appellate authority shall be excluded in computing the period of limitation for filing revision petitions under Section 25 of the Act. By excluding the time taken by the Court for granting certified copies, viz., the period between 4.8.1988 and 17.8.88 (both days inclusive) the delay in filing the revision has been calculated to be 33 days by the petitioner. The maximum period which the Court could grant under the proviso to Section 25(2) is thirty days. This Court has repeatedly held that the Court has no power to condone delay beyond the period of thirty days. Recently, I had occasion to reiterate the position after tracing the entire case-law on the subject in C.R.P. Sr. Nos. 56119 and 56121 of 1986 and C.R.P. Sr. No. 56123 of 1986, 85587 and 85590 of 1987 by order dated 1.8.1988. In view of the settled position in law, the Registry has questioned the maintainability of the petition and posted the matter for orders.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that on account of the strike by the entire staff of the Subordinate Courts between 22.6.1988 and 25.7.88, the Court must be deemed to have been closed and that period must be excluded from the computation of limitation. There is a factual error in the dates mentioned by learned Counsel as the strike was from 27.6.1988 to 21.7.1988. Apart from that, both parts of the contention are fallacious. The Courts cannot be deemed to have been closed during the strike period for the simple reason that the presiding judicial officers were attending Courts and they did not abstain from work. The judicial officers were receiving the papers presented and keeping them in Court though they could not pass orders thereon. In fact the order sought to be revised was passed during the strike period which itself shows that the Appellate Authority was attending Court. Under the Explanation to Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963, a Court shall be deemed to be closed on any day within the meaning of the section if during any part of its normal working hours