AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
15 paragraphs · 258 wordsNainar Sundaram, A.C.J.
On being referred to a Bench by Mishra, J. the question of maintainability of a revision under the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent
Control) Act, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the Act, beyond a period of sixty days with an application for condonation of delay in preferring the
revision has come up before us for consideration. S.25 of the Act is in pari materia with S.25 of the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)
Act 18 of 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Tamilnadu Act. The question of condoning the delay in preferring a revision beyond the time
prescribed under S.25 of the Tamilnadu Act stands already answered in the negative by pronouncements of learned single Judges of this Court,
Vide--
(1) Rakhu v. Vasanthalakshmi (C.M.P. No. 3128/75 C.R.P. S.R. No. 826/75, order dated 21.10.75 Sethuraman, J. concisely reported in 1975
2 M.L.J. 19;
(2) Ramanatha Rao v. Janarthanan - C.R.P.S.R. No. 55330/80 C.M.P.S.R. No. 80098/80 - Order dated 20.8.82 - K.B.N. Singh, C.J.
Reported in(1982)95 L.W. 742.
(3) Ratnasabapathy v. Ramiah C.M.P. S.R. 119324/84- C.R.P.S.R. 118214/84 - Order dated 2.12.1985 - Sengottuvelan, J.
The above pronouncements, though of learned single Judges of this Court, are well laid down and are portent on the subject. We fully endorse the
ratio countenanced in them, and there is no warrant to depart or differ from the said pronouncements of this Court. Applying the ratio expressed in
the said pronouncements of this Court, to this revision arising under the Act, the papers in this Revision are rejected.