B.C. Misra, J.
(1) Respondent sued the appellants for eviction. Additional Rent Controller granted eviction order. Appeal was filed without certified copy on 31.1.66. Before this on 28.1.66, copy was ready but appellants were not aware of the same. They obtained copy on 3.266, but did not file the same for about a month as first their counsel and then the counsel's clerk were out of station. They applied for condensation of delay which was declined and they appealed to the High Court and urged two grounds that the delay could have been condoned and that the Tribunal while admitting the appeal should be deemed to have exempted the appellant from filing the certified copy. High court rejected these contentions.] Paras 7 & 8 of the judgment are :-
(2) With regard to the second contention, I find that no orders had been obtained from the Tribunal on the application for exemption from filing a certified copy of the order of the Court below. At all events, the appellants prayed that exemption may be granted at that stage in order to know the facts of the case and grant stay of the proceedings before the Additional Controller. It had been asserted that the certified copy had been applied for but was not till then available. The prayer in the application was that the exemption from filing the certified copy be granted pending receipt of the certified copy which would be filed as and when received. Assuming the case of the appellants to be the highest, the Tribunal in admitting the appeal could not be presmed to be granting the prayer and the relief which had not been asked for in the application for exemption. Most certainly the Tribunal was not granting exemption from filing the certified copy at any time. It only agreed to consider and grant the application for stay and issued notice of the appeal to the opposite party pending filing of the certified copy. Surely the Tribunal was not granting exemption to the party from the bar of of limitation and the filing of the certified copy within period of limitation. Obviously it still remained the duty of the party to file a certified copy of the order within the prescribed period of limitation and there is nothing in order of the Court to grant this privilege to the party not to file the certified copy at all or to exceed the bar of limitation, In Joti Pershad vs Gajanda sharma, 19 8 Delhi Law Times 125, I.D Dua, C.J. (as he than was) observed that unless and until the prayer to exempt the filing of the certified copy is granted, the party cannot claim any relief against the rigour of the law of limitation and it was the duty of the counsel to secure an order for exemption at the time of preliminary hearing. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Chief Justice, however, felt inclined to condone the delay in filing the certified copies beyond time. It is a normal rule of construction of the orders of the Court that a relief which is expressly not granted would ordinarily be deemed to have been refused. Even if it be assumed that a relief could be granted by necessary implication, the relief granted cannot be presumed to rise higher than the prayer made for it. Under the law, the appeal would be incompetent unless and until it is accompanied by a certified copy of the order appealed from. In some urgent cases when the party is likely to suffer any serious injury by delaying the filing of the appeal and wants to obtain some interim relief, the appellate Court shows indulgence on entertaining the appeal and granting interim relief on perusing the plain copy of the impugned order pending the receipt and filing of the certified copy. This, however, does not make the appeal competent unless and until the certified copy has been filed or the Court expressly grants exemption from its being filed altogether and unless and until such an order is obtained, the party is not relieved from the duty of complying with the requirements of law and filing the certified copy of the impugned order within the prescribed period of limitation.
(3) In Sohan Lal Lamba vs. S. L. Kapoor, 1969 Rent Control Reporter 174, Tatachari, J. repelled the contention that in view of rule 17 (2) framed under the Rent Act, the Tribunal had no power to exempt the filing of the certified copy of the order of the controller under appeal and his lordship found that the Tribunal still retained the power under order order 41, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil procedure, to grant such exemption His lordship also held that there should be no un reasonable delay infiling the certified copies after they had been obtained. I respectfully agree with the proposition of law that it was open to the Tribunal to grant exemption either temporarily or absolutely. However in the instant case, the Tribunal has neither expressly nor impliedly granted exemption from filing the certified copy altogether or beyond the period of limitation. Asa matter of fact this argument of grant of exemption had not even been raised by the appellants before the Tribunal and they contented themselves with stating the reasons for condensation of delay in filing the certified copy which the Tribunal has, as mentioned above, found to be unsatisfactory.