IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 4922 of 2009. [O&M] Date of Decision: 7th December, 2009. Phera Singh Petitioner through Mr. N.S.Sodhi, Advocate Versus M/s Standard Watch Co. Respondent through Mr. S.K.Bhatti, Advocate. 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) This order shall dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 4922 and 6696 of 2009 as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases. Both the revision petitions have been directed by the NRI - landlord whose two eviction petitions filed under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, have been dismissed in default by the Rent Controller, Jalandhar, and thereafter applications for restoration thereof have also been dismissed. For brevity, the facts are extracted from CR No. 4922 of 2009. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 13-B of the Act, which was listed for hearing on 18.2.2008. As per the case of the petitioner, his counsel noted down the next date of hearing as 11.04.2008. When the matter was not listed on 11.4.2008, the petitioner made an inquiry and came to know that the eviction petition has already been dismissed in default on 11.03.2008. On the same day, the petitioner moved an application for restoration of the said eviction petitions, though without being accompanied with an application for condonation of delay. The restoration application has been dismissed by the Rent Controller after observing that there is a delay of one day in moving the said application. Aggrieved, the landlord has approached this Court. Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, learned counsel for the parties have been heard and also perused the impugned orders. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the non- appearance of the counsel for the petitioner on 11.03.2008 is neither willful nor intentional as the counsel had noted the date wrongly and due to this reason only that he could not appear on the date fixed. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent – tenant argues that even if there is a reasonable explanation, the respondent ought to have applied for condonation of delay and then only the application for restoration could be entertained. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and on perusal of the impugned order, I am satisfied that the revision petitions deserve to be allowed. Suffice it to observe that the court's endeavour ought to be to decide a case on merits instead of closing its doors on hyper-technicalities. It is not in dispute that non- appearance of the counsel for the petitioner on 11.3.2008 was bona- fide as he had noted the date wrongly. That being so, the Rent Controller could condone the delay of one day even on an oral prayer of the petitioner, more so when the other party could be compensated with costs. For the reasons afore-stated, the revision petitions are allowed; the impugned orders dated 30.5.2009 are set aside and after accepting the applications moved by the petitioner for restoration of the eviction petitions, the orders dated 11.03.2008 whereby the eviction petitions were dismissed in default, are also set aside and the eviction petitions are restored at their original numbers and files, however, subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs in each case. The Rent Controller, Jalandhar shall decide the matter on merits at the earliest and in accordance with law. Dasti. December 07, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE