IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.7656 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.12.2011 Joginder Parshad -----Petitioner Vs. Surinder Singh -----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:- Ms. Monika Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. 1. This is landlord’s revision petition challenging the orders dated 11.9.2009, 18.9.2009 and 24.9.2009 of the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, which read thus:- “Present: Counsel for the parties. The lawyers have abstained from work. Adjourned to 18.09.2009 for payment of arrears of rent. Sd/- (Lachhman Singh), RC/ACJ(SD) 11.09.2009” C.R. No.7656 of 2011 “Present: Counsel for the parties. On request case is adjourned to 24.09.2009 for payment of arrears of rent. Sd/- RC/ACJ(SD) 18.09.2009.” “Present: Counsel for the parties. Arrears of rent tendered by respondent, which has been accepted by the counsel for the petitioner. Statement in this regard have also been recorded separately. An application for assessing the rent in figure has been filed. For consideration, to come up on 15.10.2009.” Sd/- (Jatinder Kaur), RC/ACJ(SD) 24.09.2009” 2. The facts which emerge out from the instant revision petition are that the petitioner filed an ejectment petition against the respondent for his eviction from the demised premises on various grounds. The Rent Controller vide order dated 11.8.2009 assessed the provisional rent and adjourned the petition for 11.9.2009 for making payment of provisional rent along with interest. However, on 11.9.2009, the case was adjourned to 18.9.2009 keeping in view the fact that lawyers had abstained from work. On 18.9.2009, the case was again adjourned to 24.9.2009 for payment of arrears of rent. On 24.9.2009, arrears 2 C.R. No.7656 of 2011 of rent tendered by the respondent were accepted under protest by counsel for the petitioner. On 13.8.2010, issues were framed. Thereafter, the case was adjourned from time to time for recording evidence of the petitioner-landlord. 3. The instant revision petition has been filed challenging the aforesaid orders dated 11.9.2009, 18.9.2009 and 24.9.2009 after a delay of 728 days from the date of passing the aforesaid order stating that the Rent Controller erred at law while extending the period of payment of provisional rent vide order dated 18.9.2009 and in case of non-payment of provisional rent, the eviction order has to follow. The ground taken in the application for condonation of delay is that the petitioner is suffering from mental disorder and is undergoing psychiatric treatment since the year 2008 and has problems with memory and sleep. Due to aforesaid problem of memory lapse, he could not take a proper legal recourse, as required and as a result of which, the aforesaid delay has been caused. 4. The plea taken by the petitioner seems to be a concocted one, in view of the fact that the petitioner has engaged a lawyer who admittedly is defending the petitioner before the Court and there is not even a single averment against the said lawyer that he is not pursuing the case. Even it has not come on record in the petition as to how and in what manner the petitioner could not pursue his case because of alleged memory loss. There is no justification for filing the instant petition after a delay 3 C.R. No.7656 of 2011 of two years and three months from the date of passing of the impugned orders. Not only this, the petitioner has accepted the Rent on 24.9.2011 and still has not come to this Court for raising the grievance, as raised before this Court now. Apart from this, even the Rent Controller has framed the issues on 13.8.2010 and thereafter also, the petitioner has come to this Court after one year and four months, availing numerous opportunities to lead evidence. No justification is given by learned counsel for the petitioner for the delay and laches as discussed above. 5. Thus, no interference is warranted in the impugned order. 6. Dismissed. December 12, 2011 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ak JUDGE 4