IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.14390-CII of 2013 and CM No.29206-08-CII of 2011 and CM No.12086-CII of 2012 in CR No.3384 of 2004 Date of decision: 12.07.2013 Salman ......Petitioner(s) Versus Jai Singh & anr. ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner (s). Mr. Maharaj Kumar, Advocate for the respondents. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. Vide order dated 16.5.2003, eviction of the petitioner was ordered by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh for non-payment of provisionally assessed rent. Appeal filed by him against the aforesaid order was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide its judgment dated 6.5.2004. The petitioner has filed the instant revision petition i.e. CR No.3384 of 2004, challenging the aforesaid orders of his eviction. Revision petition was admitted vide order dated 20.7.2004 and ejectment of the petitioner was stayed. On 5.10.2007, the petitioner was directed to deposit the arrears of rent with effect from the date of purchase of the property with a further stipulation that the petitioner shall continue to deposit future monthly rent by 10th of each month. During the pendency of Saini Pushpinder 2013.07.20 11:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh the instant petition, respondent No.2-Subash Gulati was ordered to be impleaded in view of the fact that he had purchased the property in dispute vide registered sale deed dated 9.5.2005. Thereafter, respondent No.2 moved an application submitting that the aforesaid order dated 5.10.2007 has not been complied with and thereafter, vide order dated 31.10.2008, the stay order dated 20.7.2004 was vacated by this Court. The petitioner moved an application for recalling of the aforesaid order and the said order was recalled vide order dated 12.2.2009. On 23.9.2009, this Court had directed the petitioner to deposit entire arrears of rent upto 30.11.2009 failing which the ad-interim order shall stand vacated. The respondent-landlord moved CM No.22448-CII of 2010 on 30.8.2010 with an advance copy to the petitioner by registered post requesting for vacation of stay of dispossession of the petitioner on the ground that tenant has not paid arrears in compliance of the aforesaid order of the Court. None appeared on behalf of the petitioner and thus, the main petition was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 18.11.2010. The petitioner has moved the present application i.e. CM No.29208-CII of 2011 for recalling of the aforesaid order on the ground that he could not appear before the Court on 18.11.2010 for the reason that the notices of the civil misc. application sent to him through registered post were never received by him and the report on such notice was false. Along with this application, the petitioner has also moved an application i.e. CM No.29207-CII of 2011 for condoning the delay of 346 days in filing the said application for recalling of the order dated 18.11.2010 stating that his Saini Pushpinder 2013.07.20 11:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh non appearance before this Court and further delay in filing the application, is unintentional and bona fide. However, on 27.2.2012, it was directed that the petitioner shall place on record documents to prove that he has paid the rent in compliance of the Court order dated 23.9.2009. Thereafter, none appeared on his behalf on many dates and lastly Sh. Shailender Sharma, Advocate put in appearance on his behalf and the petitioner is duly represented. It is not in dispute that the vacant possession of the demised premises has already been handed over to respondent-Subash Gulati on 21.10.2011 in pursuance of the warrant of possession delivered by the bailiff through Court process in execution of the eviction orders. It may further be noticed that the petitioner has failed to deposit the arrears of entire rent as per the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 23.9.2009. Not only this, even after given an opportunity during the pendency of the restoration application, needful has not been done. Thus, admittedly, the petitioner has failed to deposit the arrears of rent as per orders of this Court. In view of the aforesaid facts alone, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay of 346 days in filing the application for recalling of the order dated 18.11.2010 whereby the main petition of the petitioner was dismissed for non-prosecution as in spite of the various opportunities granted, the petitioner has failed to even pay the rent and thus, the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands. Dismissed. July 12, 2013 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE Saini Pushpinder 2013.07.20 11:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Saini Pushpinder 2013.07.20 11:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh