C.R.No.6183 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.6183 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 29.07.2011 Deepak Narang ....Petitioner Versus Hari Krishan ....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgment ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** Present: Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vipul Jindal, Advocate for the respondent. * * * RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL) Vide impugned order dated 27.08.2010 provisional rent of the demised premises was assessed. The present revision petition has been filed on 22.9.2010 by the tenant challenging the aforesaid order. It is useful to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Harjit Singh Uppal v. Anup Bansal, JT 2011 (6) SC 236 wherein it has been observed as under:- “Section 15(1) (b) of the 1949 Rent Act provides, to a person aggrieved by an order passed by the Rent Controller, a remedy of appeal. The Section provides for limitation for filing an appeal from that order and also the forum to which such appeal would lie. The provision, for maintaining the appeal, does not make C.R.No.6183 of 2010 (O&M) 2 any difference between the final order and interlocutory order passed by the Rent Controller in the proceedings under the 1949 Rent Act. There is no specific provision in the Section that if a party aggrieved by an interlocutory order passed by the Rent Controller does not challenge that order in appeal immediately, though provided, and waits for the final outcome, whether in the appeal challenging the final order of the Rent Controller, the correctness of the interlocutory order from which an appeal lay could or could not be challenged in the appeal from the final order.” In view of the aforesaid observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein it has been stated that for maintaining an appeal under Section 15(1)(b) it does not make any difference between the final order and the interlocutory order passed by the Rent Controller in the proceedings under the 1949 Rent Act, the impugned order is appealable. Faced with this situation, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has prayed that this petition be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order by way of appeal as aforesaid. Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that under Section 15 (I) (b) of the Act, an appeal can be filed before the Appellate Authority within 15 days from the passing of an order; since in the present case, the appeal could have been filed after deducting the period for obtaining the certified copy of the impugned order upto 21 September, 2010 and the present petition having been filed on 22 September, 2010 before this Court, the petitioner be given a reasonable time to approach the Appellate Authority to challenge the impugned order. In view of the aforesaid submission which is supported by the record and the fact that even vide impugned order, petitioner was to pay the C.R.No.6183 of 2010 (O&M) 3 provisional rent upto 28.09.2010, this Court is inclined to grant one week's time to the petitioner to file the appeal before the Appellate Authority against the order dated 27.08.2010. Even otherwise under Section 15(1)(b) of the Act, the Appellate Authority has the power to allow filing of an appeal beyond the period of 15 days. Thus, in case, any such appeal is filed by the petitioner within one week from today challenging the order dated 27.08.2010, the objection of limitation shall not be taken against him and such an appeal shall be decided in accordance with law. Dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. 29.7.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) savita Judge