ONGC v. District Judge, Sivasagar

rt, (cid:28)1971 Act (cid:29)). An order of eviction dated 26th May, 2011 was passed by the Estate Officer under Section 7 of the 1971 Act for the eviction of the respondent from the premises rented out to him, on the ground of defaulter, which order was put to challenge by the respondent by filing an appeal under Section 9 of the Act before the lear ned District Judge, Sivasagar together with an application seeking condonation o f delay of 33 days in preferring the appeal on the ground that there was an assu rance given by the officers of the ONGC that the eviction order would not be imp lemented and in pursuant to such assurance, the rent for the months of June and July, 2011 were realized from the respondent on 20th June, 2011 and 1st July, 20 11, respectively, and since the respondent was under bonafide belief that he wou ld not be evicted, he was in fact evicted on 5th July, 2011, which causes the de lay in preferring the appeal. The prayer for condonation of delay was opposed b y the petitioners/ONGC by filing written objection, contending that the rent rec eived on 20th June, 2011 and 1st July, 2011 were adjusted against the arrear ren ts and after the eviction order was passed, there is no question of realization of any current rent. The learned District Judge upon appreciation of the pleadings of the parties in the application seeking condonation of delay and the objection filed thereto and also the photocopies of the rent receipts dated 20th June, 2011 and 1st July, 2 011, apart from hearing the learned counsel for the parties, having found that t here was sufficient cause preventing the respondent in not filing the appeal in time, the delay occurred in filing the appeal was condoned. Hence, the present r evision petition. I have heard Mr. GN Sahewalla, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr . BC Das, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent. Mr. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that since the eviction order dated 26th May, 2011 has already been passed under Section 7 of the Act, the amount realized on 20th June, 2011 and 1st July, 2011 naturally can not be the rent for the subsequent months but for adjustment of the same against the arrear rent, though in the receipts dated 20th June, 2011 and 1st July, 201 1 it was reflected as the rent for the months of June and July, 2011. It has al so been submitted that for issuance of such receipts, the appropriate disciplina ry action has been initiated against the concerned person, who has received the rent. The learned counsel submits that the grounds taken in the application see king condonation of delay do not demonstrate sufficient cause preventing the res pondent from filing the appeal in time and hence the learned Court below ought n ot to have condoned the delay. Mr. Das, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, supporting the impugned order dated 20th September, 2011 has submitted that the learned District Judge having found sufficient cause in not preferring the appe al in time and thereby condoning the delay for the reasons stated in the said or der, this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constit ution of India would not substitute the said view. It has also been submitted t hat it is a settled position of law that the approach of the Court in the matter of condonation of delay should be pragmatic and not pedantic. The learned seni or counsel also submits that it is evident from the receipts dated 20th June, 20 11 and 1st July, 2011 that the rent for the months of June and July, 2011 were r ealized from the respondent by the officers of the ONGC. It is not in dispute that the disputed premises was let out by the ONGC to the r espondent. According to the ONGC, the respondent defaulted in payment of the mo nthly rent, which necessitated initiation of the action under the provisions of the 1971 Act. The said action culminated in the order of eviction dated 26th Ma y, 2011 passed under Section 7 of the said Act. An appeal under Section 9 of th e 1971 Act against an order passed by the Estate Officer under Section 7 of the said Act is maintainable before the learned District Judge. Sub-Section (2)(b) of Section 9 of the Act stipulates the period of limitation for filing an appeal against an order passed under Sections 5(B) or 7 of the Act, which is 12(twelve ) days from the date on which the order is communicated to the unauthorized occu pants. In the instant case, though the eviction order was passed under Section 7 of the Act on 26th May, 2011, the memorandum of appeal was filed by the respondent on 12th July, 2011, thereby causing delay of 33 days. Perusal of the impugned orde r dated 20th September, 2011 reveals that the stand taken by the respondent that the rent for the months of June and July, 2011 were realized on 20th June, 2011 and 1st July, 2011 has been vindicated by the photocopies of the receipts produ ced and perused by the learned District Judge. The order of eviction though was passed on 26th May, 2011, the eviction was carried out on 5th July, 2011, after receipt of the rent on 1st July, 2011. The respondent in the pleadings pleaded that he was under bonafide belief that he will not be evicted as the rent for t he subsequent months, i.e. June and July, 2011, were realized by the ONGC from t he respondent. The learned District Judge, as noticed above, taking into consideration the afor esaid facts and circumstances came to the conclusion that the respondent could d emonstrate sufficient cause in not preferring the appeal in time. The scope of interference of an order passed by the learned District Judge condo ning the delay in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitu tion of India is very limited. The Court in exercise of the power of superinten dence can pass an order to do justice between the parties and to prevent abuse o f the process of the Court. As the learned District Judge has condoned the dela y for the reasons recorded in the impugned order, I do not find any ground to in voke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of Ind ia to disturb the said order dated 20th September, 2011, otherwise the responden t would be deprived from ventilating his grievance on the merit of the appeal. Hence the revision petition is dismissed. No costs. It is needless to say that the observation made in the impugned order dated 20th September, 2011 as well as in this order being for the purpose of condonation o f delay only, the same shall not be taken into consideration while deciding the appeal preferred by the respondent on merit.