IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.714 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 19.04.2011 Het Ram …..Appellant versus The S.D.O. (C)-cum-A.C.I.G. and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr.Ashok Verma, Advocate for the appellant Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) Appellant is a tenant. Respondent No.5 (the landlord) filed an application, claiming rent and also for ejectment of the appellant from 3 acres of land under his tenancy. The appellant is a blind man and it appears that the land is being cultivated by his son. The said application was contested by the appellant through his son, namely, Paras Ram, who is his attorney. The competent Court fixed the rent at Rs.1900/- in all and Rs.63/- was granted towards interest. Vide order dated 24.12.2002, directions were issued to the appellant to deposit that amount within 20 days i.e. upto 12.1.2003. It was further ordered that in case of default, the appellant shall be deemed to have been ejected from the land under his tenancy. Order was passed in presence of counsel for the appellant. Neither an appeal was filed nor the amount determined was deposited, as directed LPA No.714 of 2011(O&M) vide order, mentioned above. Amount of rent was deposited on 11.3.2003 and appeal was filed on 12.3.2003. The appeal was dismissed. The appellant also remained unsuccessful in revision. He came to this Court by filing CWP No.5263 of 2011, which was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 23.3.2011, by observing as under:- “It is the admitted fact that Paras Ram son of the petitioner is General Power of Attorney Holder on behalf of the petitioner and used to pursue the litigation. Impugned order Annexure P-1 was passed in open Court in the presence of the parties. The petitioner himself was represented by a Lawyer. In view of the admitted position that rent was not deposited in time, I do not find it a good ground to judicially review the orders passed by the authorities under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. The equities have to be balanced. Even a landlord has his rights which are required to be respected, as they flow from the Statute. It is the admitted position that the petitioner was not pursuing the litigation as his own son was given the General Power of Attorney to pursue the litigation.” We feel that the order passed is perfectly justified. If it was not possible for the appellant to comply with the order passed, he should have gone to the Collector for extension of time to deposit the amount. Determined amount of rent was not deposited and for delay, no justification has ever been offered. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 19.04.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) gk Judge 2