1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2553 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 10.08.2011 Rajesh Bhanot ....Petitioner Versus Pardeep Kumar and another ....Respondents 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. Anil Chawla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vishal Sharma, Advocate for the applicant in CM No.7997-CII of 2011. Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondents. * * * RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL) Vide impugned order dated 17.03.2009 provisional rent of the demised premises was assessed. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner 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:- “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 2 Civil Revision No.2553 of 2009 (O&M) 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.” In view of the aforesaid observations of the Hon'ble 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this situation, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has prayed that this petition be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order by way of appeal as aforesaid.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 pursuing the remedy of instant revision petition, bonfidely 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 3 Civil Revision No.2553 of 2009 (O&M) 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 pertinent to mention here that one Dhinder Sharma has moved an application for impleading him as respondent No.3 vide C.M.No.7997-CII of 2011. Since this revision petition is being dismissed in view of Harjit Singh Uppal v. Anup Bansal (supra), the instant application does not survive. However, applicant is also at liberty to raise his grievance in accordance with law before appropriate forum. Thus, in case, any such appeal is filed by the petitioner within one week from today challenging the order dated 17.03.2009, 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. 10.08.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) savita Judge