CR No.6951 of 2009 - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.6951 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 03.12.2009 **** Ranjit Singh Jassal . . . . Petitioner VS. Kirpal Singh and another . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. M.S. Jandiala, Advocate for the petitioner ***** SURYA KANT J.(ORAL) (1). This revision petition is directed by the tenant against the order dated 04.11.2009 passed by the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, whereby his application for condonation of delay of 252 days in filing of the appeal under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been dismissed and as a sequel thereto, the accompanying appeal has also been dismissed. (2). The respondent-landlords, who are husband and wife and appear to be quite aged persons, filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the Act, against the petitioner for his ejectment from the Top Floor of the Barsati portion of the House No.3285, Sector 27-D, Chandigarh consisting of two rooms, toilet-bathroom and one kitchen etc. The petitioner was duly served; he engaged a counsel and filed the written statement also. CR No.6951 of 2009 - 2 - (3). Thereafter, vide order dated 23.12.2008, the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, provisionally assessed the arrears of rent and adjourned the eviction proceedings for 15.01.2009 to enable the petitioner to tender the arrears of rent. On the said date i.e. on 15.01.2009, neither the petitioner appeared nor tendered the arrears of rent. His counsel, however, was present. Following the binding judicial precedents on the issue, the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, passed the eviction order on that very day on the ground of the petitioner’s failure to pay the arrears of rent. (4). The very next day i.e. on 16.01.2009, the petitioner filed a review application for recalling the order dated 15.01.2009. Pertinently, he did not offer the arrears of provisionally assessed rent even on 16.01.2009 or thereafter. His review application was also dismissed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh vide order dated 19.08.2009. (5). Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal along with application for condonation of delay of 252 days calculated from the date of original eviction order dated 15.01.2009. The said application has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh vide the impugned order. (6). Though taking leaf from Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the petitioner could possibly urge that the delay to the extent of the period from 16.01.2009 upto 19.08.2009 till he was bona fidely pursuing the review application before the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, was liable to be CR No.6951 of 2009 - 3 - condoned, however, he failed to explain as to what prevented him from filing the appeal soon after the dismissal of the review application on 19.08.2009. Suffice it to say that the appeal was filed after a gap of 35 days from the date of dismissal of the review application. (7). It deserves mention that even before the Appellate Authority, the petitioner did not offer the arrears of rent. (8). In these circumstances and having regard to the conduct of the petitioner who, apparently is not willing to pay the arrears of rent to the respondent-landlords and wants to retain the demised premises free-of-cost, on one pretext or the other. No case to interfere with the impugned orders is called for by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. (9). Dismissed. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 03.12.2009 vishal shonkar