Mukri Gopalan Vs. Cheppilat Puthanpurayil Aboobacker Case Brief

Citation : AIR 1995 SC 2272

Bench: S.B. Majmudar and Faizan Uddin

Date of Decision: 2nd July 1995

Murli Gopalan Case Summary

Introduction

Mukri Gopalan Vs. Cheppilat Puthanpurayil Aboobacker is a landmark supreme court judgement that clarified whether an appellate authority under section 18 of the Kerela Rent Control Act operates as a persona deisgnata or as a court with full power of delay condonation under the Limitation Act.

Facts of the Case

The Rent Control Board issued an order for possession against the appellant in an eviction suit filed by the respondent. The appeal, which was accompanied by an application for condonation of delay in filing appeal under Section 18 of the Rent Act, was dismissed on the grounds of ‘barred by limitation’ and held that as a persona designata rather than a court, it has no power to condone the delay in filing appeal by invoking the provisions contained in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Kerala High Court’s Division Bench upheld the appellate authority’s decision. As a result, an appeal was filed with the Supreme Court.

Issue

Issue raised in Murli Gopalan Supreme Court case is Whether the appellate authority constituted under S. 18, Kerala Rent Act has power to condone the delay in the filing of appeal before it?

Judgement of the Supreme Court Case

The Supreme Court, after observing all the relevant statutory provisions and the notification issued there under, has recognised that the appellate authorities as constituted under S.18, being recognised as the District Judges constitute a seperate class and cannot be regarded as persona designata. It was held that appellate authority under said Rent Act functions as a court and the period of limitation prescribed therein under S.18 governing appeals will be computed keeping in view the provisions of S. 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act. Such proceedings will attract S. 29(2) of the Limitation Act and consequently S.5 of the Limitation Act would also be applicable to such proceedings. Appellate authority will have ample jurisdiction to consider the question as to the condone delay in filing appeals on sufficient cause for such delay.

The power under that special enactment had been conferred on the regular civil courts. The appellate authority therein was a court in the normal hierarchy of courts, set up by the State. The Supreme Court, further, held that the powers under the special law were exercised by the civil court but not as persona designata and such law did not exclude the application under Ss. 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act. Therefore, the provisions of S. 29(2) of the Limitation Act were also applicable to the proceedings arising under the special law.

Hence, in such facts and circumstances, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court and the trial court.

Held by Court in Mukri Gopalan Vs. Cheppilat Puthanpurayil Aboobacker Case

The Supreme Court in Mukri Gopalan Vs. Cheppilat Puthanpurayil Aboobacker case held, that the appellate authority set up by the state possess all power of the civil court to condone the delay in filing appeal and not to act as persona designate.

Also Read: Syndicate Bank Vs. K Umesh Nayak Case

FAQs on Mukri Gopalan Case

1. What is Mukri Gopalan Vs. Cheppilat Puthanpurayil Aboobacker Case about?
   This case concerns whether the appeallate authority under section 18 of the rent control act is a persona designata or a court, and whether it can condone delay under section 5 of the Limitation act.
   
2. Does Section 5 of the Limitation Act apply to Rent Control appeals?
   Yes section 5 of the Limitation Act apply to the Rent Control Appeals as held by Supreme Court.
   
3. What is persona designata in Law?
   Persona Designata refers to an individual appointed in their personal capacity, not as a court or judicial authority.
   
4. What is the Significance if this judgement?
   This judgement clarified that appellate authorities under Rent Control Acts have full power of civil courts, including condonation of delay, ensuring justice is not defeated by technicalities.