Civil Revision No.6386 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M.No.20881-CII of 2011 in Civil Revision No.6386 of 2010 Date of decision:05.09.2011 Harish Chand and others ....Petitioners Versus Anil Kumar ....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers 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. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Kulbhushan, Advocate for the respondent. * * * RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL) This is an application for recalling of order dated 03.08.2011 passed by this Court, whereby, petitioners were allowed to challenge the order dated 07.08.2010 of Rent Controller by filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority. Brief facts of the case are that vide order dated 07.08.2010, Rent Controller, Faridabad had allowed the respondent-tenant to deposit rent under the provisions of 6-A of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, for the period w.e.f. 1.7.2006 to 31.07.2009. Thereafter, petitioners filed instant revision petition before this Court challenging the aforesaid impugned order dated 07.08.2010 of the Rent Controller, Faridabad. Civil Revision No.6386 of 2010 2 The instant revision petition was disposed of in view of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harjit Singh Uppal v. Anup Bansal, JT 2011 (6) SC 236 allowing the petitioners to seek their remedy before the Appellate Authority in terms of the aforesaid judgment. The instant application has been filed by the respondent-tenant that petitioners-landlords has concealed the factum of filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority before filing the instant revision petition which was got dismissed as withdrawn. In response to notice, issued on this application, the petitioner has filed an affidavit wherein it has been stated as under:- “That the above noted case is fixed for hearing on 05.09.2011 for hearing upon the application filed by the respondent regarding recalling of order dated 3.8.2011 passed by this Hon'ble Court on the ground that the petitioner has concealed the factum of decision of rent appeal No.17 of 2010 before the Appellate Authority, Faridabad. That the petitioner while filing the present revision petition could not communicate the factum of dismissal of appeal by the Appellate Authority, which was dismissed as withdrawn due to the fact that no apepal was maintainable under the provisions of Rent Act that is whey the counsel for the petitioner made a statement before the Ld. Appellate Authority due to the technical fault the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The certified copy of the statement dated 4.9.2010 is annexed herewith as Annexure P-4. That the petitioner filed the appeal against the order dated 07.08.2010 before the Ld. Authority, Faridabad in which the Ld. Court issued notice to the respondent and the respondent was duly served and on which date the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. Civil Revision No.6386 of 2010 3 The respondent was very much present in the Court in person. The certified copy of the summon duly served upon the respondent is annexed herewith Annexure P- 5. It is further relevant to mention here that the respondent-applicant has filed the above mentioned application along with certified copy of order dated 4.9.2010, which was applied by the respondent on 9.9.2010 and it was prepared on 13.9.2010 hence at the time of arguments of the revision petition before this Hon'ble Court, it was also in the knowledge of the respondent but he also did not brought this fact to the notice of this Hon'ble Court. That due to the aforesaid reason, the revision petition filed by the petitioner did not mention about the factum of dismissal as withdrawn of the appeal. That the petitioner tenders unconditional apology for not bringing the factum of dismissed as withdrawn of the appeal before this Hon'ble Court. This aforesaid fact was not concealed from the Hon'ble Court intentionally or deliberately, rather it was under a bona fide impression.” I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. No doubt, landlords-petitioners filed earlier an appeal challenging the order dated 07.08.2010 before the Appellate Authority, Faridabad. However, the said appeal was got dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 04.09.2010 by making following statement by the counsel for the petitioner which reads thus:- “Learned counsel for the appellant has made statement withdrawing the present appeal. In view of his statement the present appeal is hereby dismissed as withdrawn. Filed be consigned to record room.” Civil Revision No.6386 of 2010 4 It is relevant to mention at this stage, that the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 04.07.2011 held as under 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, 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.” It is not in dispute that prior to the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was consistent view of this Court that appeals filed against the order of Rent Controller except under Sections 4, 10, 12 and 13 of Rent Act were not appealable and only revision was maintainable before this Court against such orders. Thus, the earlier withdrawal of the appeal by the petitioners to avail the remedy of revision petition cannot come in their way to pursue their remedy of appeal filed before the Appellate Authority in view of the order of this Court dated 03.08.2011 passed on the basis of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Civil Revision No.6386 of 2010 5 However, petitioners have admittedly not disclosed the aforesaid fact of filing of the earlier appeal and is guilty of concealing the same. Keeping in view, it is appropriate that respondent be compensated by way of suitable cost which are assessed at Rs.2000/-. Petitioners shall pay the cost to the respondent within one month from today. Thus, this application for recalling of order dated 03.08.2011 is dismissed. September 5, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) savita JUDGE