Civil Revision No.6214 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6214 of 2008 Date of Decision:09.08.2011 Mukesh Kumar ....petitioner Versus Ram Kumar .....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.Ajay Jain, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Hari Om Attri, Advocate for the respondent *** RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.(ORAL): This is landlord's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 20.10.2008, whereby the tenant has been granted an opportunity to deposit the arrears of rent after making a default in making the payment of provisionally assessed rent. In view of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Harjit Singh Uppal versus Anup Bansal JT 2011(6)SC 236, any order passed by the Rent Controller in the proceedings under the Rent Act, is appealable. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Harjit Singh Uppal(Supra) read thus: "25. 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 Civil Revision No.6214 of 2008 2 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, 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." Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted before this Court that he be allowed to file an appropriate appeal before the Appellate Authority, in view of the aforesaid authoritative judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that since the limitation period for filing such an appeal before the Appellate Authority has already expired and the petitioner was pursuing his remedy of this revision petition, bonafidely, the limitation in filing such an appeal be condoned. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to pursue his remedy of appeal in terms of the judgement of Hon'ble the Supreme Court as aforesaid before the Appellate Authority. In case, an appeal is filed before an Appellate Authority within one week from Civil Revision No.6214 of 2008 3 today, the question of limitation shall not be raised against the petitioner and any such appeal filed shall be decided on merits. Disposed of. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 09.08.2011 neenu