Civil Revision No.326 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.326 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 08.08.2011 M/s G.D.Industrial Engineers ..... Petitioner Versus M/s Star World Wide Movers Pvt.Ltd. ..... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.P.K.Mutneja, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Hemant Sarin, Advocate for the respondent RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. Vide impugned order dated 01.12.2010 provisional rent of the demised premises was assessed. The present revision petition has been filed 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:- "25. 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 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 Civil Revision No.326 of 2011 2 or could not be challenged in the appeal from the final order." In view of the aforesaid observations of Hon'ble the 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this situation, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has prayed that this petition be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order by way of appeal as aforesaid.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 further submitted that under Section 15(1) (b) an appeal can be filed before the Appellate Authority within 15 days from passing of an impugned order. Since in the present case, the petitioner is pursing the remedy of instant revision petition, bonafidely and that the Appellate Authority by virtue of Section 15(1) (b) can condone the delay in filing the appeal, therefore, the question of limitation be not raised against the petitioner in case of filing of appeal by him. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to pursue his remedy of appeal in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court as aforesaid before the Appellate Authority. In case, an appeal is filed before an Appellate Authority within a period of ten days from today, the question of limitation shall not be raised against the petitioner and any such appeal filed shall be decided on merits. Disposed of. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) 08.08.2011 JUDGE neenu