1980 (5) TMI 119 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the civil court.
2. Legal termination of tenancy.
3. Condonation of delay under Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act.
4. Bona fide mistaken legal advice.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court:
The petitioner filed a suit for possession and recovery of damages and water charges against the respondents, who are the legal representatives of a deceased statutory tenant. The respondents contested the suit on the ground that the civil court had no jurisdiction as there existed a landlord-tenant relationship, and they had inherited the tenancy rights. The trial court treated this as a preliminary issue and concluded that the respondents were tenants of the petitioner, thus the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. Consequently, the plaint was returned to be filed in the proper court.

2. Legal Termination of Tenancy:
The petitioner claimed that the tenancy of Om Prakash Kaura was terminated by notice dated 1-1-1970, making him a statutory tenant until his death. The respondents argued that the tenancy was never terminated and they inherited the tenancy rights. The trial court did not delve deeply into this issue as it primarily focused on the jurisdictional question.

3. Condonation of Delay under Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act:
The petitioner filed an appeal against the trial court's order after the prescribed period, along with an application for condonation of delay supported by affidavits. The application stated that the delay was due to the mistaken advice of the counsel, who advised filing a revision petition instead of an appeal. The Additional District Judge dismissed the application, noting that the delay from 4-9-1976 to 13-10-1976 was unexplained and that the advice of the counsel did not constitute sufficient cause or good faith under Sections 5 and 14 of the Act.

4. Bona Fide Mistaken Legal Advice:
The petitioner argued that the mistaken advice of the counsel, who honestly believed a revision petition was appropriate, should be considered sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The court held that not every mistaken advice constitutes sufficient cause or good faith. The counsel's affidavit lacked details on why he believed a revision petition was appropriate, and there was no explanation for the delay in responding to the Registry's objections. The court emphasized that the advice must be given after due care and attention to constitute good faith. The court concluded that the counsel's advice did not meet these criteria and thus did not justify condonation of delay.

Conclusion:
The revision petition was dismissed as the court found no sufficient cause for condonation of delay and no bona fide mistake in the legal advice given by the counsel. The court reiterated that the provisions of Order 43, Rule 1 (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure were clear, and the mistaken advice did not constitute good faith under Section 14 or sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The petition was dismissed, and parties were left to bear their own costs.