CR No.3426 of 2010 (O&M) -1- CR No.3427 of 2010 (O&M) ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) CR No.3426 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:09.03.2011. Ved Parkash ...Petitioner Versus Shri Surinder Kumar ...Respondent (2) CR No.3427 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:09.03.2011. Ved Parkash ...Petitioner Versus Shri Vidoot Kumar Khera ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Heman Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Tejinder Pal Singh, Advocate, for Mr. Varinder Pal Singh, Advocate, for the respondent(s). ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This order shall dispose of two revision petitions bearing CR No.3426 of 2010 titled as `Ved Parkash Vs. Shri Surinder Kumar' and CR No.3427 of 2010 titled as `Ved Parkash Vs. Shri Vidoot Kumar Khera' which have been filed against the order of the Appellate Authority who has dismissed two appeals filed by the petitioner(s) on the ground of delay of 11 days. Both the aforesaid cases have been filed by the landlord who had filed applications under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 [for short “the Act”] before the Rent Controller, Panchkula, in order to seek eviction of the tenants, which were dismissed on 11.09.2007. He filed statutory appeals along with the applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, CR No.3426 of 2010 (O&M) -2- CR No.3427 of 2010 (O&M) ***** 1963 [for short “the Act of 1963”] for condonation of delay of 11 days. The said applications have been dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority, as a result thereof, the main appeals have also been dismissed by the impugned orders. The ground taken in the applications for condonation of delay was that his Advocate told him that the limitation to file appeal against the order of the Rent Controller is 90 days, which otherwise was 30 days, and as soon as he came to know about it, he immediately filed appeals but, in the meantime, the delay of 11 days had occurred which was neither intentional nor willful. This reason assigned by the petitioner has been rejected by the learned Appellate Authority on the ground that he has not explained as to how he came to know that the period of limitation for filing appeal is 30 days and not 90 days from the date of the order. It was also observed that this plea is not cited as a ground to condone the delay in any of the provisions of the Act of 1963. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record. To my mind, the learned Appellate Authority has committed a patent error of law in dismissing the application for condonation of delay of 11 days in filing of the appeals as the landlord would not have been benefitted in any manner in lodging the appeal late. Moreover, in the case of The Punjabi University Vs. Acharya Swami Ganesh and another, 1972 PLR 908, the Supreme Court has held that a mistake by a lawyer is a good ground for condoning the delay in filing of the appeal. In the said case, there was a mistake committed by a counsel in calculation of the period of limitation. In view of the above, the present revision petitions are hereby allowed, the impugned orders passed by the learned Appellate Authority in both the cases are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Appellate Authority, Panchkula, to decide the appeals on merits. The parties, through their learned counsel, are directed to appear before the learned Appellate Authority, Panchkula on 09.05.2011. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of another connected case. March 09, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE