Civil Revision No.5978 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5978 of 2010 Date of Decision:04.08.2011 M/s G.R.S.Health Care Pvt.Ltd. ....petitioner Versus R.S.Grewal .....respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Anand Chibbar,Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Namit Gautam, Advocate for the respondent **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.(ORAL): Vide impugned order dated 17.08.2010 passed by Rent Controller, Ludhiana, provisional rent of the demised premises was assessed. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the aforesaid order on various grounds. It is relevant to mention, at this stage, that on 16.09.2010, this Court passed the following order: Counsel for the petitioner has stated that vide impugned order dated 17.08.2010 (Annexure P8) provisional rent has been assessed at Rs.25.18 lacs, house tax/building tax Rs.2,89,754/-, electricity dues Rs.3,30,369/-, water and sewerage charges Rs.24,250/-. In toto, the amount to be paid is Civil Revision No.5978 of 2010 2 Rs.31,62,373/- with interest @6% per annum with costs of Rs.1000/- by 17.09.2010. Issue notice of motion for 27.10.2010. Counsel states that for paying such a huge amount, only a period of 30 days has been granted to the petitioner. Counsel submits that petitioner, a Medical Institute, is running a hospital which is providing medical care to the needy. Therefore, the order is onerous and caused an extreme hardship so far as the grant of a very short period to deposit the same is concerned. Petitioner may deposit Rs.10 lacs out of the assessed provisional rent of Rs.25.18 lacs by tomorrow and the remaining amount of Rs.15.18 lacs within next 30 days. Regarding the house tax/building tax, electricity dues, water and sewerage charges, interest and costs is concerned, payment of the same is deferred till other side is called upon to address the arguments. Copy of the order be given dasti on payment of usual charges.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the aforesaid order stands complied with. However, on the other hand, Mr.Namit Gautam, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent has submitted before this Court that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Harjit Singh Uppal vs.Anup Bansal JT 2011(6) SC 236 and a judgment of this Court in Civil Revision No.4444 of 2011 titled as M/s PSG Screws Industries and others versus Smt.Balwant Kaur decided on July 26, Civil Revision No.5978 of 2010 3 2011 the present revision petition is not maintainable. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed before this Court that the present petition be dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order by way of an appeal as settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and he be allowed to raise all the objections against the impugned order as permissible under law. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that since the petitioner was pursuing his remedy against the impugned order before this Court in a bona fide manner and therefore the limitation period which has already expired for filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority, be extended suitably. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the fact that the petitioner was pursuing his remedy against the impugned order bonafidely before this Court, this petition is ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority within ten days from today. In case, any such appeal is filed before the Appellate Authority, the same shall be decided in accordance with law. It is also clarified that the question which was left open by this Court vide order dated 16.09.2010, the petitioner shall be free to raise objection in that regard before the Appellate Authority while challenging the impugned order. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 04.08.2011 neenu