Madras High Court

T.Saravana Bava vs Padmini Mohanraj on 28 June, 2023

                                                                             C.R.P.SR.No.12554 of 2023

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                     Dated : 28/6/2023

                                                        CORAM

                                   THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

                                        Civil Revision Petition SR.No.12554 of 2023
                                                             and
                                                  C.M.P.No.5834 of 2023

                     T.Saravana Bava                          ...        Petitioner

                                                            Vs

                     Padmini Mohanraj                         ...        Respondent


                     Prayer: Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings

                     (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, to set aside the judgment and decree

                     dated 19/10/2022 made in R.C.A.No.377 of 2018 on the file of IX Court

                     of Small Causes at Chennai, reversing the fair and decreetal order dated

                     17/6/2017 made in R.C.O.P.No2170 of 2013 on the file of XII Small

                     Causes Court, Chennai.



                                  For Petitioners                ...   Mr.C.Munusamy

                                  For respondent             ...       Mr.A.Muthukumar
                                                          -----



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                     1/14
                                                                             C.R.P.SR.No.12554 of 2023



                                                      ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the judgment and

decree dated 19/10/2022 made in R.C.A.No.377 of 2018 on the file of

the learned IX Court of Small Causes, Chennai, with a delay of 37 days

in filing C.R.P.

2. The petitioner is the tenant of the schedule of property belonging

to the respondent/land lord, for a monthly rent of Rs.13,500/-. The

petitioner/tenant has filed R.C.O.P.No.366 of 2008, for fixation of fair

rent, which was allowed and the fair rent was fixed at Rs.44,065/- p.m.,

from 19/2/2008 onwards. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent/land

lord has filed R.C.A.No.430 of 2010 and the same was dismissed, on

1/2/2013.

3. The respondent/landlord has demanded arrears of rent, which is the

difference between the rent already paid and the fair rent fixed with

effect from 19/2/2008. As the petitioner/tenant has committed default in

payment of the same, the respondent/land lord has filed petition under

Section 10 (2) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control

Act, 18 of 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973. The said petition was https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.SR.No.12554 of 2023

contested keenly, oral and documentary evidence was produced on either

side and ultimately, the petition filed by the respondent/landlord was

dismissed.

4. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent/land lord has filed

R.C.A.No.377 of 2018, on the file of the learned IX Court of Small

Causes, Chennai and after full fledged enquiry, R.C.A.No.377 of 2018

was allowed, on 19/10/2022, directing the petitioner/tenant to vacate the

schedule premises and hand over the vacant possession to the

respondent/land lord, within a period of two months, from the date of the

said order Being aggrieved, C.R.P.SR.No.12554 of 2023 has been filed

with a delay of 37 days.

5. Heard Mr.C.Munusamy, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Mr.A.Muthukumar, learned counsel for the respondent.

6. This Civil Revision Petition is filed along with C.M.P.No.5834 of

2023 to condone the delay of 37 days.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.SR.No.12554 of 2023

7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

though the petitioner required to file a revision, within 60 days, from the

date of receipt of the copy of the order, he could not file the revision as

he was suffering from viral fever and delay in filing the revision has

occurred inadvertently and unintentionally and in case, if the delay of 37

days is not condoned, he will be put to irreparable loss and hardship,

thereby, sought for condoning the delay of 37 days.

8. The respondent/land lord, on the other hand has submitted that

there is no substance in the grounds taken by the petitioner in condoning

the delay, and submitted the delay of 37 days in filing the revision

cannot be condoned.

9. The point that arises for consideration is whether the delay of 37

days in filing the Civil Revision Petition can be condoned.

10. Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act, 1960 as

amended in 72 is as under:-

25. Revision (1) The High Court may, on the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.SR.No.12554 of 2023

application of any person aggrieved by an order

of the appellate authority, call for and examine

the record of the appellate authority, to satisfy

itself as to the regularity of such proceeding or

the correctness, legality or propriety of any

decision or order passed therein and if, in any

case, it appears to the High Court that any such

decision or order should be modified, annulled,

reversed or remitted for reconsideration, it may

pass orders accordingly.

(2) Every application to the High Court for

the exercise of its power under sub-section (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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.SR.No.12554 of 2023

is satisfied that the application had sufficient

cause for not preferring the application within

the time specified in this sub-section.

11. On going through the above provision, it is clear that aggrieved

by the orders of Appellate Tribunal, revision can be filed within one

month, from the date of communication of the proceedings of dismissal

of rent control appeal. However, proviso provides that the High Court, in

its discretion can extend the time to file a revision not exceeding one

month, if the Court is satisfied that the petitioner had sufficient cause for

not preferring a revision within a time. That means, normally, revision

has to be filed, within one month, from the date of receipt of a copy of

the order of Appellate Authority and if the petitioner is able to show the

valid reasons for not filing the revision, within the stipulated time of one

month, still the petitioner can file an application to condone the delay, on

which the High Court can extend the time, not exceeding one month.

Thereby, in all, the petitioner is expected to file a revision, within 60

days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order in rent control appeal.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.SR.No.12554 of 2023

12. In the case on hand, admittedly, the revision is filed after 67 days

of receiving the copy of the order, thereby, after excluding one month

period available to the petitioner, under Section 25 (2) of the Act, still

there is a delay of 37 days. It is submitted vehemently by the learned

counsel for the petitioner that even though statutory limitations to

condone the delay, under Section 25 of the Act is only upto 60 days,

since the Court being a Constitutional Court has got power to condone

the delay of 60 days, depending upon the circumstances, in case, if the

petitioner is able to make out a case that there are good reasons and valid

grounds to condone the delay.

13. As per the proviso to sub-Section 2 of Section 25, there is no

discretion to this Court to condone the delay beyond 30 days period. The

powers of this Court as a revisional Court are not unlimited. Even if the

discretionary powers are there, those powers shall not be exercised, in

arbitrary manner.

14. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted

the following authorities in support of his contention.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.SR.No.12554 of 2023

(i). In LAKSHMIKANTHAM AMMAL AND 4 OTHERS Vs.

JAYARAMA ODAYAR (CMR.Sr.Nos.41476 and 41477 of 1991,

wherein one of the Honourable Judges, Mishra,J, (as he then was) in a

Division Bench held as under:-

“Although it appears there is no direct decision on this question, the office of the Court has referred to a decision of a learned single judge of this Court under which certain observations are made which appear to indicate that invoking Ss. 5 and 29(2) of the Limitation Act is not permissible. It is a fit case, in my opinion, in which the question of maintainability of a petition in revision beyond a period of sixty days with an application under S. 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay should be listed before a Division Bench and an authoritative view is taken. Let the papers be accordingly placed before the Honble the Chief Justice for orders as to posting before a Division Bench.

However, the other learned Judge Nainar Sundaram, ACJ, (as he then

was) on the Division Bench has held as under:-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.SR.No.12554 of 2023

The question of maintainability of a revision under the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the Act, beyond a period of sixty days with an application for condonation of delay in preferring the revision has come up before us for consideration. S. 25 of the Act is in pari materia with S. 25 of the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Tamilnadu Act. The question of condoning the delay in preferring a revision beyond the time prescribed under S. 25 of the Tamilnadu Act stands already answered in the negative by pronouncements of learned single Judges of this Court, Vide—

(1) Rakhu v. Vasanthalakshmi (C.M.P. No. 3128/75 C.R.P.S.R. No. 826/75, order dated 21.10.75 Sethuraman, J. concisely reported in 1975 II M.L.J., (S.N.)19;

(2) Ramanatha Rao v. Janarthanan - C.R.P.S.R. No. 55330/80 C.M.P.S.R. No. 80098/80 - Order dated 20.8.82 - K.B.N. Singh, C.J. Reported in (1982) 95 L.W. 742.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.SR.No.12554 of 2023

(3) Ratnasabapathy v. Ramiah C.M.P.S.R. 119324/84 - C.R.P.S.R. 118214/84 - Order dated 2.12.1985 - Sengottuvelan, J.

The above pronouncements, though of learned single Judges of this Court, are well laid down and are portent on the subject. We fully endorse the ratio countenanced in them, and there is no warrant to depart or differ from the said pronouncements of this Court. Applying the ratio expressed in the said pronouncements of this Court, to this revision arising under the Act, the papers in this Revision are rejected.”

15. The said decision of this Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court

has been followed subsequently in a case reported in 1994-1-L.W – 599

G.DEENADAYALAN Vs. HABIBUNNISSA, wherein at paragraph 8, it

has been held as follows:-

“8. Consequently, I hold that the word 'month' in Section 25(2) of the Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960 will comprise of only 30 days and not 31 days. Inasmuch as the petitioner has not disputed the period of delay as 31 days and inasmuch as this Court has held that the period https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.SR.No.12554 of 2023

of delay cannot be extended by reference to the Limitation Act or any other statute it follows that the delay of 31 days in this case cannot be excused. Consequently, miscellaneous petition is dismissed. There will however, be no order as to costs. “

16. Similarly, in PATTANSWAMI Vs. AMIRTHA JOTHI (1997 –

1- L.W 603, wherein at paragraph 13, it has held that

“13. From a reading of Section 25(2) of the Act, it is clear that every revision petition under this Act shall be preferred to this Court within one month from the date on which the order was communicated to the petitioner and the Proviso to Section 25(2) of the Act empowers the High Court in its discretion to allow a furtherperiod not exceeding one month from the date of any such application. In the instant case, the time for filing the revision expired on 17-5-1996, which was during the summer vacation of this Court.

Therefore, under Section 4 of the Limitation Act, the revision petition should have been filed on the day When the Court reopened on 10-6-1996 when it would be well within time. This, however, wilt

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.SR.No.12554 of 2023

not have the effect of extending the period of thirty days of limitation up to 17-6-1996 as contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. If this contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is accepted, the petitioner will have the double advantage of extended period of limitation for filing the revision on the day when the Court reopens after summer vacation under Section 4 of the Limitation Act when the period of limitation expired during the vacation of the Court, and again filing a petition under the Proviso to Section 25(2) of the Act, seeking the discretionary power of the High Court to allow a further time of one month from the date of reopening of the Court after vacation.”

17. In view of the authorities referred above, it is clear that initially,

the petitioner is expected to file the revision, within 30 days, from the

date of receipt of the proceedings. In case, if there are reasonable

grounds for not filing the Revision within 30 days, delay of 30 days can

be condoned. In the case on hand, after exhausting 30 days period,

application is filed to condone the delay of 37 days. Therefore,

irrespective of the reasons mentioned to condone the delay, petition

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.SR.No.12554 of 2023

seeking to condone the delay of 37 days deserves to be dismissed.

20. Accordingly, C.M.P.No.5834 of 2023 is dismissed.

Consequently, C.R.P.SR.No.12554 of 2023 is rejected. No costs.