Civil Revision No.3721 of 2009 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3721 of 2009 Date of decision: July 9, 2009. Shri Krishan @ Anil Kumar ...Petitioner(s) v. Kishan Das ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Sudhir Pruthi, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Hittan Nehra, Advocate for the caveator-respondent. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): Notice of motion. Shri Hittan Nehra, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. This revision petition is directed against the orders dated 8.11.2008 passed by the Rent Controller, Jalandhar, ordering the petitioner's eviction from the demised premises as well as dated 2.6.2009 passed by the Appellate Authority, Jalandhar whereby the petitioner's appeal against the ejectment order has been dismissed on the ground of being time barred. Briefly stated, the facts are that the respondent-landlord filed an ejectment petition under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Civil Revision No.3721 of 2009 -: 2 :- Restriction Act, 1949 for vacation of the demised premises comprising a shop on the ground that the premises is required by him for personal necessity. As the petitioner-tenant failed to appear before the Rent Controller and did not tender the arrears of rent also, the eviction order has been, primarily, passed on the ground of non-payment of rent. Much after expiry of the limitation period, i.e., after a delay of over five months, the petitioner filed the appeal on 10.3.2009 which has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide the impugned order, being barred by limitation. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the impugned orders. True it is that the petitioner has not been vigilant in pursuing his case before the Rent Controller or in availing the appellate remedy. He has failed to give any plausible explanation for the delay in filing of the appeal. At the same time, it cannot be overlooked that the petitioner has made specific allegations against his counsel who was engaged before the Rent Controller. If there is an iota of truth in those allegations, the petitioner can be said to have made out a case for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. The Appellate Authority has not rejected these allegations specifically. Otherwise also, every court's endeavour ought to be to decide the lis on merits and not on hyper-technical grounds, especially when in such like cases, the respondent can be suitable compensated with costs. For the reasons afore-stated, the revision petition is allowed in part; the impugned order dated 2.6.2009 passed by the Appellate Authority, Jalandhar is set aside and the petitioner's application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal is allowed. Civil Revision No.3721 of 2009 -: 3 :- The matter is remitted to the Appellate Authority, Jalandhar to decide the appeal afresh on merits and in accordance with law, however, subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- by the petitioner to the respondent-landlord. The petitioner-tenant is directed to pay the costs to the respondent-landlord before his appeal is taken up for hearing on merits. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Appellate Authority, Jalandhar on 3.8.2009. Dasti July 09, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge