A.J. Saldhana vs Additional Collector And Ors.
2002 Latest Caselaw 1209 Bom

JUDGMENT

R.S. Mohite, J.

1. Rule.

2. The learned A.G.P. waives service on behalf of respondent No. 1. Shri Purohit waives service for respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 7. He undertakes to file power on behalf of respondent No. 7, within two weeks. By consent the matter is heard.

3. The writ petition impugns an order passed by the Additional Collector, Nagpur on 16-5-1998 by which he has refused to entertain an appeal against the order dated 28-1-1998 passed by the Rent Controller, Nagpur on the ground the appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation and that he, as the Appellate Authority had no power to condone the delay. The order has been passed on the basis of judgment of this Court in the case of Dinesh v. Somani Radio Corporation. The ratio in the said judgment is no longer good law in view of the decision of the Division Bench judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Babasaheb Kedar Ginning Pressing Va Prakriya Sanstha Ltd., Saoner v. Additional Collector, Nagpur & another, reported in 2000 (Supp.) Bom.C.R. (N.B.)490 : 2000(2) Mh.L.J. 720, wherein it has been held that the reviewing or Appellate Authority under the C.P. and Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Act are courts and they have jurisdiction under section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone delay in filing review/appeal.

4. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned judgment and order dated 16-5-1998 passed by the Additional Collector, Nagpur is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Additional Collector, Nagpur for deciding the application for condonation of delay in accordance with law.

5. Ad interim relief granted, stands vacated. There should be no order as to costs.