Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) The appellants are the tenants of an accommodation situate at Mussoorie. Respondents 4 to 6 who are the land-lords of the premises, applied before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for permission to file a suit for the ejectment of the appellants on the ground that they needed the accommodation for their personal use. On May 17, 1969 the Rent Control and Eviction Officer passed an order granting the requisite permission. Aggrieved, the appellants filed a revision before the Commissioner, Meerut. The Commissioner held that the revision was barred by time and on that ground he dismissed it. Aggrieved, the tenants instituted a writ petition in this Court. A learned single Judge was not impressed by the various submissions raised in the writ petition and dismissed the writ petition. Hence the present appeal.
(2.) It appears that the appellants presented a revision application in the Court of the Additional Magistrate (Judicial), Debra Dun on June 16, 1969. The reader of the Court accepted the revision and after making a note of presentation transmitted it by post to the Court of the Commissioner Meerut. The office of the Commissioner at Meerut made the usual report regarding the limitation, the sufficiency of the court fee and the requisite copy of the order appealed against and notice was issued to the revisionists. When the revision came up for hearing before the Commissioner an objection was raised that the revision was barred by time. The Commissioner held that the memorandum of revision was received in the office of the Court on July 4, 1969, that is to say, much beyond the prescribed 30 days period of limitation. He refused to entertain an application for condonation of delay as well as the point whether the tenants were entitled to the exclusion of time requisite for obtaining Me copy of the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer.
(3.) It appears that before the Commissioner the appellants had filed an affidavit of Shri M. M. L Khanna, chief reader of the District Magistrate, Debra Dun. In this affidavit it was stated that the Commissioner had issued a letter to the District Magistrates, including the District Magistrate, Debra Dun allowing all of them to accept the appeals and revisions on behalf of the Commissioner, Meerut Division. According to these instructions the reader of the District Magistrate was accepting appeals and revisions to be presented to the Commissioner, including revisions under the Rent Control Act. The Commissioner did not disbelieve this affidavit. A perusal of his order shows that he avoided dealing with it directly. The Commissioner observed that in the year 1946 the Rent Control Act did not contemplate the hearing of any revision by a Commissioner and, therefore, the acceptance of revisions at the district level and their presentation to the Commissioner was only a figment of the imagination of Shri Khanna. We do not read these observation to the effect that the Commissioner had not issued instructions to the District Magistrate directing them to accept the revisions as deposed by Shri Khanna. Adverting to this affidavit, the learned Single Judge observed that there was no prevailing practice of entertaining the revisions by the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Dehra Dun. We thus find that there is no finding disbelieving the affidavit of Mr. Khanna. On the contrary, the fact that the appellants were led by information of a prevailing practice to present the revision before the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) the fact that the Court of the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) accepted the revision and transmitted it to the Commissioner at Meerut, coupled with the fact that the office of the Commissioner at Meerut accepted the presentation of the revision at Debra Dun to be proper, show that the affidavit of Shri Khanna was true on facts. It appears that the Commissioner was only indicating the place and the manner of presentation of the revisions. Since the Rent Control Act did not either by itself or rules framed under it lay down the precise procedure in regard to the presentation of the revision, the Commissioner who was the authority entitled to entertain and decide the revisions was within his rights to prescribe the procedure in respect of presentation of the revisions. The direction given by the Commissioner in 1946 with regard to the presentation of revisions was valid and enforceable.;