IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.3593 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 6.7.2011 Amir Chand ......Petitioner(s) Versus Raman Kumar and another ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. L.M. Gulati, Advocate for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) This is tenant's revision petition challenging the orders dated 16.4.2009 and 18.4.2011 passed by the Rent Controller Amritsar and the Appellate Authority, Amritsar respectively. As per the pleadings, the respondent-landlord filed an eviction application against the petitioner on various grounds i.e. non-payment of rent, building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and bona fide personal necessity of the landlord and his family. The ejectment petition was contested. The Rent Controller vide its judgment dated 16.4.2009 held that the petitioner was in arrears of rent w.e.f. 23.4.2005 and the landlord had a bona fide need in respect of the demised premises. However, the ground that the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation was not accepted. Resultantly, the petitioner-tenant was granted two months' time to make the payment of rent including house tax to the respondents, failing which he was liable to be ejected from the demised premises on account of non-payment of rent. Eviction of the petitioner was also ordered on the ground of personal bona fide necessity of the respondent-landlord. The petitioner filed an appeal against the aforesaid order before the Appellate Authority which was barred by time. The Appellate CR No.3593 of 2011(O&M) -2- Authority framed the following issue vide its order dated 19.10.2009: “1. Whether there are sufficient grounds for condonation of delay as alleged for? OPA. 2. Relief.” The petitioner led evidence in support of his case. However, the Appellate Authority found that the cause shown by the appellant for condoning the delay was not sufficient and explanation provided by him was mala fide and rejected the application for condonation of delay. Resultantly, the appeal was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that there was ample material before the Appellate Authority from which it is established that the petitioner was suffering from a spinal injury and was confined to bed and therefore, the appeal could not be filed within time. The argument raised is without any merit. The evidence led to prove is contradictory to the plea taken by the petitioner. No infirmity can be found in the impugned order. It is also relevant to point out at this stage that admittedly, the petitioner has failed to comply with the order of the Rent Controller dated 16.4.2009 inasmuch as the arrears of rent w.e.f. 23.4.2005 upto the date of order, which were required to be deposited within two months, have not been deposited till date. Thus, the petitioner has defaulted in making the payment of arrears of rent and is liable to be ejected on that ground alone and the order of eviction against him on the ground of non-payment of rent had become operative. The aforesaid default on the part of the petitioner cannot be condoned. Hence, this Court restrains itself from interfering in the impugned order in its revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. July 6, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE