Madras High Court R.S. Hoon vs Mrs. Azaeemunnissa Begum And Ors. on 1 August, 1988 Equivalent citations: (1988)2MLJ477 ORDER Srinivasan, J. 1. Though I am aware that I am beating a dead snake, I am obliged to do it somewhat elaborately on account of the lengthy arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner in the fervent hope that he could persuade me to deviate from the well laid path and pave the way to the constitution of a Full Bench to consider the matter. Unfortunately for him I concur whole heartedly with the decisions rendered already by this Court and there is no question of a reference to a Full Bench. However, I have come out with a long essay on the subject lest I should be accused for not having applied my mind to the points raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. The two revision petitions are against the common order passed by the VII Judge, Court Small Causes, Madras while discharging his functions as an Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973 in R.CA.No. 109 and 110 of 1985 on his file which arose from R.C.O.P.No. 4812 of 1985, XIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras filed by the respondents herein for fixation of fair rent for a building occupied by the petitioner herein as tenant. The order of the Appellate Authority was made on 28.2.1986. The revision petitions were presented in this Court on 31.7.86 after delay of 107 days. C.M.P.S.R.No. 56123 of 1986 and 85590 of 1987 are for condonation of the delay of 107 days in preferring C.R.P.S.R.No. 56121 of 1986 and C.R.P.S.R.No. 56119 of 1986 respectively. The two CM.P's are filed under Section 25(2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973, hereinafter referred to as the Act. C.M.P.S.R.No. 85587 of 1987 is filed under Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure for condonation of a delay of 433 days in proper presentation of C.R.P.S.R.No. 56121 of 1986. 3. The Registry naturally raised an objection to the maintainability of the revision petitions and the petitions for condonation of delay as under Section 25(2) of the Act, this Court is empowered to condone delay only upto one month. Of course, the Registry had in its armour several judgments of this Court taking the view that the maximum period which a revision petitioner could have for presenting a revision in 30 + 30 60 days excluding the time requisite for obtaining certified copy of the order sought to be revised. Undaunted by the prior judgments, learned Counsel for the petitioner prepared a long note referring to certain authorities and annexed it to a memo. Which reads as follows: In view of the decisions cited in the annexure hereto, the High Court Office Appellate Side Examiners' section may be directed to post this matter before the Lordship the Chief Justice to refer the same to the Full Bench and pass such further or other orders as His Lordship may deem fit in the circumstances of the case. On the direction of the Officiating Chief Justice, the matter was posted before me. In the course of his oral arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner refer red to some of the decisions found in the annexure to his memo, and cited some more decisions in addition thereto. 4. Before considering the points urged and authorities relied on by learned Counsel for the petitioner, I would briefly set out the relevant provision of law and the earlier decisions of this Court. Before the amendment of the Act in 1973, the Act did not prescribe any period of limitation for filing a revision in this Court. In fact, the section expressly upheld the authorities mentioned therein to exercise the power of revision" at any time". Though the section did not prescribe any period of limitation, the Appellate Side Rules framed by the High Court contained a provision therefor. Order 4, Rule 20 of Appellate Side Rules, read as follows: Civil revision petition shall be presented within such time as is prescribed by any enactment. There no period of limitation is prescribed, the Civil Revision Petition shall be presented within ninety days of the order explained of or within such further time as the court may, on an application made for the purposes allow, the provisions of Section 12 of the Limitation Act shall apply in computing the said period of ninety days. An attempt was made to by pass the rule but it was thwarted by Varadarajan, J., in C.R.P.S.R. Nos. 36982 G. Abdul Kudum Sahib v. A. Rukkamdeel Sahib 1973 T.L.N.J. 329 by holding that revision under the Act should be filed within 90 days in accordance with the Appellate Side Rules. 5. By Act 23 of 1973, Section 25 of the Act was completely replaced by a new section which is in vogue now. the relevant portion of the section is found in Subsection (2) which reads thus: (2) Every application to the High Court for the exercise of its power under Subsection (1) shall be prefe