1979 PLP 82 (CLC)

Mian Iqbal Hussain for Respondent. Date of hearing: 22nd May 1979. This appeal is directed against an order of Ch. Abdul Majid, Addi tional District Judge at Gujrat dated 18-5-71, affirming an order of Sh. Saeed Ahmad, Rent Controller, Gujrat, dated 21-1.0-70, whereby the respondent's application for the ejectment of the appellant from the shop in dispute was accepted, and the appellant was directed to deliver possession of the property to the landlord. The appellant was given 4 months' time to vacate the premises.

2. Before the Rent Controller, the appellant had denied that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant existing between the parties. The issue was decided against the appellant. . The learned Additional District Judge also decided the issue against the appellant in addition to holding that his appeal was time-barred.

3. The present appeal is also belated. The appellant had filed this appeal on 10-6-71. He, had also filed an application dated 14-6-71, submitting that a certified copy of the Rent Controller's order was not available, and praying that : "In these circumstances, it is respectfully prayed that the appeal may be entertained as it is, appellant undertakes to file the said copy as soon as it is supplied to him by the copying Department. The case came up for hearing on 15-6-71 when it was observed by this Court that the memorandum of appeal was not properly documented and it was ordered that the appeal may be put up after the requisite certified copy had been placed on record. The certified copy of the Rent Controller's order was filed on 8-7-71.

4. In order to compute the period of limitation for purposes of filing the appeal the following dates are relevant. The order appealed against was passed on 18-5-71. The application for obtaining its certified copy was filed on 26-5-71 and the copy was prepared and delivered to the appellant on 29-5-71. In these circumstances, the appeal could have been filed upto 26-6-71. However the copy of the Rent Controller's order having been filed on 8-7-71, the appeal could not be regarded as having been filed within the period of limitation, because before that date it was not properly constituted.

5. The copy of the Rent Controller's order also shows that the appellant had applied for it on 12-6-71. The copy was prepared on 21-6-71, but he had received it on 29-6-71. If the appellant had collected the certified copy on the date it was prepared, he could have filed the same within the period of limitation. He did not file it even on 29-6-71 when he had actually received it. In any case there was no excuse for delaying the filing of the copy till 8-7-71. The appellant has not filed any appli cation for condonation of delay either. In these circumstances, the appeal is held to be time-barred, and is therefore dismissed as such. Appeal dismissed.