1991 PLP 954 (CLC)

The learned Additional Rent Controller consolidated the above ejectment applications on 20th November, 1990. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed:- "(1) Whether the Opponent has committed default in payment of rent? (2) Whether the application is not maintainable and is barred under the principle of res jusidicata. (3) Whether the application is pre-mature and there was no cause of action? (4) Whether the application has been made with mala fide intention?" The parties led their evidence in support of their respective contentions, and the learned Additional Rent Controller after taking into consideration the evidence produced by the parties decided Issue No.1 against the applicant, Issue No.2 against the Opponent, while Issues Nos.3 and 4 were denied against the applicant and consequently ejectment applications were dismissed. The present appeals have been filed against the above order of dismissing the ejectment applications. I have heard Mr. Mubarak Ahmed learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Mr. S. Ali Ahmad Tariq learned counsel appearing for the respondent and have gone through the R & P of the case. At the outset Mr. S. Ali Ahmed Tariq learned counsel appearing for the respondent raised a preliminary objection that the appeals were time-barred, and therefore, the same should be dismissed. It was contended by him that the time limit for filing appeal was 15 days and after deducting the time spent in obtaining the certified copy of the order of the appeal was clearly time-barred. Mr. Mubarak Ahmed learned counsel for appearing for the appellant, first conceded to the above position but after the short orders were dictated, he contended that there was amendment in the Limitation Act in the year 1985; according to which the time limit for filing appeal was thirty days, and, therefore, the appeals were in time. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel, and have gone through the R & P of the case. The above ejectment applications were dismissed on 29-2-1984, and it is admitted by both the learned counsel that the time limit for filing appeal in the year 1984 when the ejectment applications were dismissed was fifteen days. The appellant applied for copies on 3-3-1984 and the, copy was prepared on 16-10-1985, while the copy was obtained/received by the appellant on 12-11-1985; and the appeal was filed in the Court on 2&-11-1985. That appellant applied for copies after three days, and even if the time consumed in obtaining the copy is considered to be 12-11-1985, yet the appeal had to be filed by the appellant within fifteen days as envisaged by section 24(2) of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963. The appellant had applied for copies after three days of the judgment and, therefore, he was entitled to file appeals within twelve days from the date of receipt of the copy i.e. 12-11-1985; but the appeal was filed on 28-11-1985, and thus the appeal was barred by four days. Of course, section 24 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, was amended on 31st January, 1985, by Ordinance IX of 1985. By virtue of Section 8 of the amending Ordinance, the appeal could be filed before the High Court within thirty days under section 24(l) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1962, as amended, but the amendment could not extend the time for riling appeals, as the time had already started and the amendment could not be considered as retrospective. Thus it is clear that the above appeals filed by the appellant were time-barred and section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to the proceedings under the Rent Restriction Act. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed being time-barred. I had decided the above appeals on 23-10-1990 by a short order and these are the reasons for the same. H.B.T./A-1005/K Appeals dismissed