CM No.17138-CII of 2009 in CR NO.4146 of 2009 - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CM No.17138-CII of 2009 in CR NO.4146 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: 11.08.2009 **** M/s. New Plywood Home . . . . Petitioner VS. Surinder Singh Deugun . . . . Respondent **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** Present: Mr. Suresh Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner **** SURYA KANT J.(ORAL) CM No.17138-CII of 2009 The prayer in this application is for condonation of delay of 902 days in filing of the accompanying revision petition. The respondent-landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short, the Act) for eviction of M/s. New Plywood Home, by way of summary procedure laid down under Section 18-A of the Act. It may be mentioned here that a Non-Resident Indian, subject to fulfillment of other conditions prescribed by Section 13-B, falls in the category of ‘specified landlord’ and is entitled to seek eviction of his tenant by way of summary procedure. The eviction petition filed by the respondent-specified landlord was accepted by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana vide order dated 27.11.2006. The applicant-petitioner has now filed the accompanying revision petition challenging the said eviction order, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner-firm was sued through Mani Ram – one of the partner who had allegedly retired from the CM No.17138-CII of 2009 in CR NO.4146 of 2009 - 2 - partnership vide Deed of Dissolution dated 31st March, 2005 (Annexure P2) and that the eviction petition was in fact filed in connivance with the said Mani Ram. In order to explain the delay of more than 2 ½ years, the applicant has averred as follows:- “The applicant came to know about the ejectment order when she received the summons in the execution proceedings and she immediately contact his counsel to find the fate of the case and when she came to know that the case has already been decided against the firm, she applied for getting certified copy of the said order but the Registry of the Court inform that the said file has already been sent to Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court as the similarly situated matter is already been pending in the Hon’ble Court and the file is also attached with the other cases.” As may be seen the averments made by the applicant are totally vague, wild, evasive and misleading. The dates when the petitioner received the summons, she contacted her counsel to know “the fate of the case”, are conspicuously missing. She herself has admitted that the factum of pendency of the case has known to her. Still she allowed the grass to grow under her feet, is somewhat intriguing. The partner of the firm through whom the premises was taken on rent, was none else than the brother of the husband of the present petitioner. The allegation of his connivance with the landlord are patently false for the reason that the said Mani Ram applied for leave to contest and it is only after CM No.17138-CII of 2009 in CR NO.4146 of 2009 - 3 - the Rent Controller declined to grant leave to contest, that the eviction order was passed. If the applicant, as claimed by her, has been running the affairs of the firm, it is next to impossible that she would not be aware of the eviction proceedings. The so-called explanation of the delay is apparently in collusion with Mani Rani through whom the partnership firm has already suffer the eviction order. No case to condone the inordinate and unexplained delay is made out. The Application is accordingly dismissed. As a consequence thereto, the accompanying revision petition also stands dismissed being time barred. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 11.08.2009 shonkar