CR No.4444 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.4444 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 26, 2011 M/s. PSG Screws Industries and others ..... Petitioners Versus Smt. Balwant Kaur ..... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. Amit Rawal, Advocate with Mr. Sanjiv Ghai, Advocate, for the petitioners. RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. Vide impugned order dated 01.06.2011 provisional rent of the demised premises was assessed. The present revision petition has been filed on 23.07.2011 by the tenant challenging the aforesaid order. 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:- "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 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 CR No.4444 of 2011 (O&M) -2- 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 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this situation, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has prayed that this petition be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners to challenge the impugned order by way of appeal as aforesaid. Counsel for the petitioners 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 appeal could have been filed before the Appellate Authority up to 16.06.2011 and there being summer vacations w.e.f. 16.06.2011 up to 15.07.2011 the impugned order could have been filed before the Appellate Authority on 16.07.2011 well within limitation but since the petitioners were pursuing this remedy of revision before this Court and since the petitioners were pursuing their remedy in a bona fide manner, therefore, the question of limitation be not raised against the petitioners in case of filing of appeal by them. It has also been stated before this Court that even by virtue of Section 15(1) (b) the Appellate Authority can also condone the delay in CR No.4444 of 2011 (O&M) -3- filing of the appeal after showing the sufficient cause. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners to pursue their 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 provided before an Appellate Authority within a week from today, the question of limitation shall not be raised against the petitioners and any such appeal filed shall be decided on merits. Disposed of. A copy of this order be given to the counsel for the petitioners under the signatures of the Bench Secretary. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) 26.07.2011 JUDGE manju