CR No. 6474 of 2007 Present:- Mr. Malkeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Jaswal, Advocate for the respondent This revision petition is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority dated 16.11.2007 whereby the appeal of the petitioner against the order of the Rent Controller dated 29.1.1999 was dismissed primarily on the ground of delay. Initially the proceedings were initiated against the predecessor- in-interest of the petitioner who was his father. He was proceeded ex parte by the learned Rent Controller on 31st January, 1998 and the eviction orders were finally passed on 29th January, 1999 i.e after about one year of the passing of the ex parte order against the father of the petitioner who is said to have died on 2.2.99 i.e after the passing of the eviction orders by the learned Rent Controller. No appeal was preferred against the said orders of eviction. On 27th April, 2001 an application for setting aside ex parte ejectment order was filed by the petitioner which was dismissed on 1st March, 2007. The petitioner thereafter filed a revision petition bearing no. 1576 of 2007 before this Court which was dismissed on 19th April, 2007 by passing the following order:- “This is a petition against order dated 1.3.2007 passed by Rent Controller, Ambala whereby an application of the tenant-petitioner U/o 9 Rule 13 CPC was dismissed. It comes out that respondent-landlord had filed an ejectment petition against the tenant, now petitioner in the year 1993. In that, the tenant, now petitioner had put in appearance. Issues had been framed but then tenant had absented before CR No. 6474 of 2007 2 passing of the ejectment order dated 29.1.1999. However, no application for setting aside that order was made till at least 25.4.2001. Counsel for the petitioner-tenant argues that father of the tenant had died and therefore he could not appear before the Rent Controller during the pendency of the petition. On inquiry made, it is stated that father of the petitioner had expired on 2.2.1999. Even if it was so, the application for setting aside should have been made within limitation but it was made after two years of the ejectment order. I do not find any good ground to interfere. Dismissed.” The appeal was preferred thereafter by the petitioner which has now been dismissed vide orders dated 16.11.2007 which are being impugned herein. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that his father who was contesting the proceedings had died immediately after the passing of the order by the learned Rent Controller and that is the reason that no appeal could be preferred within time. It was further contended that only ground on which the eviction was sought was on the ground of non- payment of rent which has been satisfied and therefore, the appeal of the petitioner should atleast have been heard on merits by taking this factor into consideration. The contention was opposed by the learned counsel for the CR No. 6474 of 2007 3 respondent who pointed out that the ex parte proceedings were initiated against the father of the petitioner in the year 1998 but he chose to ignore the same and rather waited till the Rent Controller passed an order of eviction against him. Thereafter also for two years no steps were initiated by the petitioner who ultimately filed an application for setting aside the ex parte eviction orders in the year 2001 which was decided in the year 2007 and again a revision petition was preferred which was dismissed. It was pleaded that the petitioner has enjoyed the possession long enough to the determent of the respondent and he cannot be permitted to take the advantage of the situation as he has himself slept over his right and therefore, the order of the Appellate Authority is justified. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the Appellate Authority. The father of the petitioner was proceeded against ex parte in the year 1998. He did not choose to contest the proceedings or to make any attempt to get this order set aside which resulted in the passing of the eviction order by the learned Rent Controller. Thereafter, also for two years no steps were initiated and it is much belatedly in the year 2001 that an application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings was made. The appeal also was filed in the year 2007. In view of these facts, the order of the Appellate Authority cannot be faulted with and the revision petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner then contended that some time be granted to vacate the premises. In case the petitioner furnishes an undertaking before the CR No. 6474 of 2007 4 learned Rent Controller within a period of two weeks from today to hand over vacant physical possession of the demised premises within a period of six months i.e. on or before 05-05-2009 the execution of the eviction orders shall remain in abeyance. In case no such undertaking is filed, logical conclusions shall follow and the petitioner shall not be entitled to any benefit of the aforesaid order. In case, the petitioner furnishes an undertaking and retains the possession for six months, he shall continue to pay the rent by the 7th of each month and failure to pay the rent shall result in the automatic vacation of the protection granted by this order. November 5, 2008 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge