1984 (7) TMI 394 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Limitation for Application for Fixation of Standard Rent (u/s 8 of the Act)
2. Validity of Interpolated Court Order
3. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal

Summary:

1. Limitation for Application for Fixation of Standard Rent (u/s 8 of the Act)
The Supreme Court addressed whether the tenant's application for the determination of standard rent was barred by limitation. The Court held that the application was within time as it was filed within six months from the date the tenant was accepted as a direct tenant by the landlord, effective from May 1, 1955. The Court rejected the lower courts' view that the limitation should be computed from the date the tenant was initially inducted as a sub-tenant by the head-tenant. The Court emphasized that the period of limitation should start from the date the premises were let to the tenant who disputes the standard rent.

2. Validity of Interpolated Court Order
The Court examined the issue of whether the tenant's failure to comply with an order, which was later found to be interpolated, should result in striking off the tenant's defense. The Supreme Court found that the trial court's order dated October 6, 1956, was indeed interpolated and therefore legally non-existent. The Court held that the tenant could not be penalized for failing to comply with an interpolated order and set aside the order striking off the tenant's defense.

3. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal
The Supreme Court also dealt with whether the tenant had shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing an appeal against the interpolated order. The Court found that the tenant had made a convincing case for condonation of delay, noting that the suit was dismissed for default and restored later, and the appeal was filed promptly thereafter. The Court set aside the lower courts' refusal to condone the delay, emphasizing that failure to do so resulted in a gross miscarriage of justice.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the orders of the District Judge and the High Court, and remitted the matter back to the lower courts for further proceedings. The Court directed the trial court to first decide the application for fixing interim rent and then proceed with the suit on merits, allowing the tenant to defend the suit. The Court also condoned the delay in substituting the heirs of the deceased original landlord, thus setting aside the abatement of the appeal.