1977 (8) TMI 168 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Default in payment of rent leading to eviction applications.
2. Dismissal of eviction applications by lower authorities.
3. Financial Commissioner's decision on the eviction petitions.
4. High Court's dismissal of the Civil Writ Petition.
5. Limitation and procedural requirements for filing a Letters Patent Appeal.
6. Condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
7. Nature of Rule 3, Chapter 2-C of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Default in Payment of Rent Leading to Eviction Applications:
The appellant filed two applications for eviction of the respondents due to their default in paying rent. A compromise was reached on March 31, 1969, stipulating that the respondents should pay a sum of Rs. 11,872 by March 31, 1959, and the balance in six-monthly installments of Rs. 1,000 each. The respondents defaulted on future installments, prompting the appellant to file two applications on April 2, 1962, for their ejectment on the grounds of non-payment of rent without sufficient cause.

2. Dismissal of Eviction Applications by Lower Authorities:
The Assistant Collector initially dismissed these applications, a decision upheld by the Collector on appeal. The appellant then filed revision applications to the Commissioner.

3. Financial Commissioner's Decision on the Eviction Petitions:
The Commissioner recommended setting aside the lower orders and passing a decree for ejectment, which the Financial Commissioner accepted on November 26, 1965, for the area of 76 Kanals. This order became final. However, for the 117 Kanals, the Financial Commissioner deemed the ejectment petition infructuous as the land was acquired by the Amritsar Improvement Trust, which had taken possession of it, rendering the respondents no longer tenants.

4. High Court's Dismissal of the Civil Writ Petition:
The appellant challenged the Financial Commissioner's decision in a Civil Writ Petition, which was dismissed by a Single Judge. An appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent to a Division Bench was filed within 30 days, but the respondents objected, claiming the appeal was barred by limitation due to non-compliance with procedural rules (three sets of documents were not filed).

5. Limitation and Procedural Requirements for Filing a Letters Patent Appeal:
The Division Bench referred seven questions to a Full Bench, focusing mainly on whether an appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent is incomplete without the requisite three spare copies of the paper-book. The Full Bench held that non-compliance with Rule 3 of Chapter 2-C means the appeal is not deemed filed until it is complete in all respects and accepted for registration by the Registry.

6. Condonation of Delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act:
The Division Bench, upon considering the Full Bench's judgment, held that the appellant failed to make a case for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, leading to the dismissal of the appeal on the grounds of limitation. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

7. Nature of Rule 3, Chapter 2-C of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules:
The Supreme Court, referencing the case of State of Punjab v. Shamlal Murari, held that Rule 3, though mandatory in language, is directory in nature. Substantial compliance is sufficient, and the failure to file two additional sets of documents is a mere irregularity that can be condoned. The appeal was presented within the prescribed period of limitation, and the irregularity was cured within a reasonable time.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in treating the appeal as barred by limitation. The appeal was presented within the period of limitation, and the irregularity in filing the required documents was cured within a reasonable time. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, noting that the parties had reached a settlement. The respondents could withdraw the sum of Rs. 25,734/- along with accrued interest, and the appellant agreed not to recover any arrears of rent from the respondents. The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs.