- (1.) The concerned learned District Judge was urged by the petitioners, being the appellants in Misc. Appeal No. 58 of 2009, to condone the delay of 2110 (two thousand one hundred ten) days in presenting an appeal under Section 9, Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereafter the Act). By order dated 30.04.2011, the learned District Judge declined the prayer of the petitioners and consequently dismissed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. This order is challenged in this revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) The Calcutta Port Trust had leased out one of its properties to the first petitioner, the third opposite party and one Amiya Bag (since deceased) (hereafter Amiya). Having failed and/or neglected to pay lease rent that was payable, they were served with a notice dated 24.10.2002 issued by the Estate Officer. He called upon them to show-cause on or before 03.12.2002 why an order shall not be passed requiring them to pay Rs.15,59,409.88p together with simple interest @ 12% per annum on the said sum with effect from 04.12.1993 till final payment for occupation of the said property, being ''public premises'' within the meaning of the Act. Since no objection had been raised in response to such notice, an order was passed on 19.03.2003 by the Estate Officer holding that the first petitioner, the third opposite party and Amiya were liable to pay the said sum. A further notice dated 20.03.2003 was issued by the Estate Officer requiring them to pay the said sum by 30.04.2003. This notice was issued in terms of provisions contained in Section 7 of the Act.
(3.) The order dated 19.03.2003 was sought to be challenged by the three petitioners herein (the brother, widow and son of Amiya respectively), being the appellants in the misc. appeal referred to above. In support of their plea that the delay in presentation of the appeal ought to be condoned, the petitioners pleaded that Amiya was looking after the interest of the petitioners and the third opposite party all throughout. He, however, died on 02.01.2008 at the relatively young age of 43 (fourty-three) years. Prior to his death, he was continuously suffering from various ailments almost from 2002 and was under the treatment of doctors. He was bed ridden from the middle of 2004 and thereafter admitted in hospital. Being the eldest son of the family, other members thereof depended on him blindly since it was he who used to make tadbir so far as the said public premises is concerned either with the Port Trust or with other statutory bodies. It was about six months after Amiya passed away that the petitioners came to learn of the order dated 19.03.2003 of the Estate Officer, when they received a notice on 28.06.2008 from the concerned Certificate Officer claiming Rs.28,89,536.25p including interest. On receipt of such notice, the first petitioner contacted a learned advocate and it took about 9 (nine) months to collect all the documents and 15 (fifteen) days more time to prepare the memorandum of appeal whereafter, only on 04.03.2009, the appeal under Section 9 could be presented. Claiming complete ignorance of the order dated 19.03.2003, the prayer for condonation of delay was made.;