CR No.5327 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.5327 of 2010 Date of Decision: August 03, 2011 Smt. Saroj Rani ..... Petitioner Versus Dinesh Kumar ..... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Sura, Advocate, for the respondent. RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. This is landlord's petition challenging the impugned order dated 6.04.2010 whereby the Rent Controller has refused to assess the provisional rent observing that there is no need to assess the rent since the relationship of landlord and tenant is denied. It is useful to refer to the judgement 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 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, CR No.5327 of 2010 -2- 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 Hon'ble the 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this situation, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has prayed that this petition be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order by way of appeal as aforesaid. Ordered accordingly. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner had challenged the impugned order by way of instant revision petition and he was pursuing his remedy bonafidely and further that even under the provisions of Section 15(1) (b) of the Rent Act, the Appellate Authority on showing reasons can condone the delay for filing the appeal, it is ordered that in case petitioner files an appeal against the impugned order within ten days from today, the objection of limitation shall not be taken against him and any such appeal before the Appellate Authority shall be decided in accordance with law. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) 03.08.2011 JUDGE manju