CR No.3098 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNAJB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.3098 of 2011 (O&M) Decided on 13.5.2011 Ramji Dass -- Petitioner vs. Ripu Daman Goyal,Advocate --Respondent CR No.3099 of 2011 (O&M) Decided on 13.5.2011 Ramji Dass -- Petitioner vs. Ripu Daman Goyal,Advocate --Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Amit Rawal,Advocate,for the petitioner RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J, (Oral) This order shall dispose of two revision petitions of the same title i.e. C.R.No.3098 of 2011 (O&M) Ramji Dass vs. Ripu Daman Goyal, Advocate and C.R.No.3099 of 2011 (O&M) Ramji CR No.3098 of 2011 (O&M) 2 Dass vs. Ripu Daman Goyal, Advocate, filed against the order of learned Appellate Authority, Bathinda, dated 30.4.2011, who has passed a conditional order of stay in favour of the tenant/petitioner that he would deposit 75% of the amount of arrears due within 15 days from the date of passing of the order with a rider that in case it is not deposited the stay granted would be vacated. Initially, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the rent of three years has already been deposited by the petitioner and the remaining rent cannot be claimed as it is barred by limitation but later on he fairly brought to the notice of this Court a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Rulia Ram Hakim Rai Vs. S.Fateh Singh S.Sham Sher Singh AIR 1962 Punjab 256 , in which it has been held that:- “After giving the matter my careful consideration, I am of the view that on the correct interpretation of Section 13 (2) (i) of the Act it must be held that in the instant case there was no compliance with the requirements of this provision. The tenant had to deposit all the arrears of rent irrespective of the fact that part of the arrear was beyond limitation and could not be recovered. The result. therefore, is that this petition is dismissed but in the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs”. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for extension of time for complying with the order and has also submitted that instead of 75% the amount of arrears to be deposited may be reduced to 50%. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, this CR No.3098 of 2011 (O&M) 3 Court can only accept the request with regard to extension of time and for that matter, period of another 15 days is granted from the date of passing of this order to the petitioner to comply with the order of learned Appellate Authority, Bathinda, otherwise, in case of non- deposit of arrears, the impugned order would become operative. With these observations, both the revision petitions stand disposed of in limine. 13.5.2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) RR JUDGE