CR No.153 of 1986 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM Nos.19073 to 19075-CII of 2011 in CR No.153 of 1986 Date of decision: 16.9.2011 Lakshmi Narayan ......Petitioner(s) Versus Ravi Chandra Mangla & ors. ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) CM No.20405-CII of 2011 CM is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CM No.19072-CII of 2011 CM is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CM No.19073 to 19075-CII of 2011 The respondents filed ejectment petition against one Lakshmi Narayan son of Shri Ram Gopal Vaish Aggarwal (predecessor-in-interest of the applicants) on various grounds including the ground that the tenant had ceased to occupy the demised premises for a period of 6 years prior to the filing of the present petition. The said ejectment petition was dismissed by the Rent Controller, Palwal vide order dated 4.10.1983. The landlord-respondents filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, Faridabad against the order of the Rent Controller. The said appeal was accepted vide judgment dated 6.11.1985 holding that the tenant-Lakshmi Narayan was liable to be evicted on the ground that he CR No.153 of 1986 (O&M) 2 had ceased to occupy the premises as prescribed under law. Lakshmi Narayan filed the instant revision petition challenging the aforesaid judgment of the Appellate Authority ordering his eviction. The revision petition was admitted vide order dated 27.3.1986. The stay of dispossession granted to the tenant vide order dated 3.2.1986 was ordered to continue till further orders. The revision petition was dismissed by this Court on 11.12.2002 by passing the following order: “Present:-None. Service is complete. This case has been called out twice. Nobody appears on behalf of any of the parties. Dismissed.” The applicants have filed an application i.e. CM No.19074-CII of 2011 to allow them to file the application for restoration of the revision petition and pursue the same being legal representatives of Lakshmi Narayan-petitioner. Along with this application, CM No.19075-CII of 2011 has also been filed to set aside the order dated 11.12.2002 whereby the revision petition was dismissed. Along with these applications, another application i.e. CM No.19073-CII of 2011 has been filed for condoning the delay of 3135 days in filing the aforesaid application for recalling the order dated 11.12.2002. In the application for bringing on record the applicants as legal heirs of Lakshmi Narayan-petitioner, it has been mentioned that aforesaid Lakshmi Narayan died on 24.1.1990 leaving behind the applicants as legal heirs, who were not aware of the pendency of the instant revision petition and they came to know about the dismissal order dated 11.12.2002 when they were served in the execution petition filed by the landlord-respondents only in the month of July, 2011. CR No.153 of 1986 (O&M) 3 It may also be relevant to mention that in the application for recalling of order dated 11.12.2002 whereby the revision petition was dismissed, no averment has been made by the applicants that they are in occupation of the demised premises and are running business in the shop in dispute as the demised premises has been ordered to be vacated on the ground that Lakshmi Narayan (predecessor-in-interest of the applicants) had ceased to occupy the same under the provisions of the Act. Not only this, these applications have been filed after a huge delay of 3135 days and the only reason given in the application is that they were not in the knowledge of pendency of the revision petition. The averments made in this application for condoning the delay are not believable as it is not the case of the applicants that they were not in the knowledge of the fact that the shop in dispute was on rent with their father and in case it was in their occupation and was running business they must have paid rent. Admittedly, no rent has been paid by them for the shop in dispute after the death of Lakshmi Narayan on 24.1.1990. Moreover, the petitioner was duly represented before this Court at the time of admission of the revision petition. The said counsels through whom the instant revision petition was filed is very much available in the High Court but the applicants have chosen a new counsel to file the instant application. It is not their case that the earlier counsel has not informed them about the order dated 11.12.2002. Even, this is not their case that they have changed their addresses resulting into non-communication of information. Their further case that even the earlier counsel did not knew the fate of case cannot be accepted as no such affidavit of said counsel is forthcoming. Neither any application for restoration of this petition has been filed by the earlier counsel by owning that he did not know the fate of the revision petition. In these circumstances, no case is made out for condoning CR No.153 of 1986 (O&M) 4 such a huge delay and recall the order dated 11.12.2002. Dismissed. Since the application for condonation of delay is rejected, the other applications do not survive. September 16, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE