As mentioned earlier, the decree and judgment of the first Appellate Court had number been produced by that time.
Under the rules of the High Court the Appellant was required to file along with his appeal memo, the judgment and decree appealed against as well as the judgment of the Trial Court.
The last date for filing the appeal admittedly was July 14, 1969.
But in appeal, the Rent Control Tribunal reversed the order of the Rent Controller and decreed the second Respondents claim.
The High Court ordered that those documents should be produced within the time prescribed for filing the appeal.
It appears that the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court was produced before the High Court on July 15, 1960 though the High Court had re opened after summer recess on July 14, 1969 but the judgment of the Trial Court was number produced at all.
Hence, the High Court was fully justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground that the same is barred by limitation.
Hence the appeal was prima facie barred.
At the time of the filing of the appeal, numbere of these documents were filed, but an application was made to the High Court to dispense with the production of those documents.
His application was rejected by the Rent Controller.
Thereafter, the appellant filed a second appeal before the High Court of Delhi on April 28, 1969.
It was urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant that though his client had applied for the companyies of the decree and judgment of the first Appellate Court as well as that of the Trial Court on the very date, it decided the appeal, that Court made available only the decree and judgment of the first Appellate Court and number that of the Trial Court.
S. Hegde, J. There is numbersubstance in this appeal.
The second Respondent filed a petition for evicting the appellant and the first Respondent from the suit premises on certain grounds.
The Appellant claims to be a sub tenant under the first Respondent who is a tenant under the second Respondent.
