The main legal point established in the judgment is that R.44 of the Rules does not prescribe a period of limitation for a revision petition under S.20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, but indicates a conventional period within which the revision has to be filed.

K.K. Usha, J.

The question that is referred for consideration of the Full Bench is whether the period of 90 days made mention of in R.44 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971, hereinafter referred for short as 'the Rules', can be treated as prescription of period of limitation in the matter of filing of revision petitions under S.20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, hereinafter referred for short as 'the Act' and whether a separate petition to condone the delay under S.5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is required, if the revision petition is filed beyond the period of 90 days.

2. S.20 of the Act which deals with the revisional jurisdiction provides that in cases where the appellate authority empowered under S.18 is a Subordinate Judge, the District Court, and in other cases the High Court may, at any time, on the application of any aggrieved party, call for and examine the records relating to any order passed or proceedings taken the Act by such authority for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality, regularity or propriety of such order or proceedings, and may pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit. The Government by notification dated 31.8.1989 conferred on the District judges the power of the appellate authorities under the Act. Consequently the power of revision under S.20 is now vested in the High Court. Under S.18 of the Act a period of 30 days has been fixed for filing an appeal before the appellate authority by a person aggrieved by an order passed by the Rent Control Court. But admittedly there is no provision either under the Act nor under the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Rules, 1979 prescribing any period of limitation for filing a revision under S.20 of the Act. As early as in 1969 Krishna Iyer, J. had occasion to consider the effect of this lacuna in Padmanabha Pillai v. Narayana Pillai, 1959 KLJ 614, and the learned judge observed as follows:

"The revision was filed, as I said earlier, over 2 years after the appeal was disposed of, but was admitted and heard, because by a strange omission in the statute, as both sides submitted, no period of limitation is fixed in the matter of entertaining a revision. Litigation can becomes long-acting torment if an order can be challenged years later on the pretext that there is no period of limitation fixed in the statute. Of course, it is for the legislature to remedy this lacuna, but it is certainly open to the revisional court to decline to exercise its discretion when a party moves for relief after a period of indiscreet delay".

The question that has now come up for consideration is whether R.44 of the Rules will have the effect of filling up the above referred lacuna. R.44 of the Rules reads as follows:

"44. Revision Petitions:- Where no period of limitation is prescribed by any other law, a revision petition shall be presented within 90 days of the order complained of. The provisions of Ss.5 and 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963, shall apply to such petitions."

3. Before we go into the question whether the Rules would satisfy the requirement of a special law prescribing period of limitation, we will refer to the earlier decisions of this Court which had considered the question regarding the period of limitation for filing a revision under S.20 of the Act. In Narayanan v. Rent Controller, 1988 (2) KLT 74, a Single Bench of this Court took the view that the exercise of revisional power under S.20 is entirely discretionary in the interests of justice. It does not confer any right on the petitioner but only vest a power in the Court. It is a privilege conferred on the petitioner and not a right. Even though there is no period of limitation prescribed for filing the revision, the petitioner is expected to be diligent in invoking the revisional power. He must come to Court without undue delay, at the earliest. The words "at any time" in S.20 have to be delimited to reasonable levels having regard to prevalent pra