1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1848 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : 11.08.2011 Sumeet Garg ....Petitioner Versus Radha Raman Metal Works ....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. H.P.S.Ishar, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL) This is landlord's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 14.10.2010 whereby the Rent Controller had assessed the provisional rent for the demised premises. Challenging the aforesaid contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the provisional rent could not have been assessed as the tenant had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Be that as it may, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Harjit Singh Uppal v. Anup Bansal, JT 2011 (6) SC 236, the impugned order is appealable. It is useful to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court 2 Civil Revision No.1848 of 2011 (O&M) 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 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.” 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this situation, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has prayed that this petition be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to seek his remedy of appeal in terms of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in accordance with law. 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. It may also be observed at this stage that under Section 15(1)(b) of the Haryana Rent Act, Appellate Authority is competent to allow filing of an appeal beyond the period of limitation if sufficient causes 3 Civil Revision No.1848 of 2011 (O&M) is shown, thus, in case, any such appeal is filed by the petitioner within one week from today challenging the order dated 14.10.2010, 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. 11.08.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) savita Judge