C.R.No.3936 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. C.R.No.3936 of 2011 Date of decision: 11.8.2011 Jasbir Singh and another .....Petitioners. vs. Deep Kaur and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. -- Present: Mr.Asish Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate, for Mr.Veneet Sharma Advocate, for respondent No.1. -- Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral) This is tenant's revision petition challenging the interim order dated 14.5.2011 passed by the Rent Controller,Amritsar, which reads as under:- “The assessment of provisional rent is made at the separate sheet totally for Rs.55235/ for the period from 1.4.2003 to 30.4.2011 the respondent is given time to pay the said amount and the amount of Rs.1500/- already imposed as cost payable by him. 14.5.2011 Sd/-Rakesh Kumar, Rent Controller, Amritsar. File be again called after the lunch at this stage the amount of Rs.1500/- paid and adjourned to 10.6.2011 for the tender of the amount of the rent. An application for disposal of rent application dated 3.6.2009 is already pending for disposal. Arguments as the same be also heard on the date fixed. 14.5.2011 Sd/-Rakesh Kumar, Rent Controller, Amritsar.” C.R.No.3936 of 2011 2 At this stage, it is useful to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Harjit Singh Uppal v.Anup Bansal,JT 2011 (6)SC 236, wherein it has been observed as under:- “”25.Section 15(1)(b) of the 1949 rent Act provides, to a person aggrieved by an order passed by the Rent Controller, a remedy of appeal. The Section provides for limitation for filing an appeal from that order and also the forum to which such appeal would lie. The provision, for maintaining the appeal, does not make any difference between the final order and interlocutory order passed by the Rent Controller in the proceedings under the 1949 Rent Act. There is no specific provision in the Section that if a party aggrieved by an interlocutory order passed by the Rent Controller does not challenge that order in appeal immediately, though provided, and waits for the final outcome, whether in the appeal challenging the final order of the Rent Controller, the correctness of the interlocutory order from which an appeal lay could or could not be challenged in the appeal from the final order.” In view of the aforesaid observations of Hon'ble the Supreme Court wherein it has been stated that for maintaining an appeal under section 15(1)(b) it does not make any difference between the final order and the interlocutory order passed by the Rent Controller in the proceedings under the 1949 Act, the impugned order is appealable. Faced with this situation, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has prayed that this petition be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners to challenge the impugned order by way of appeal as aforesaid. It is not in dispute that by virtue of section 15(1)(b) of the C.R.No.3936 of 2011 3 Rent Act, the Appellate Court can also condone the delay in filing the appeal after showing the sufficient cause. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner was pursuing this petition bona fidely, if any such appeal is filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Court challenging the impugned order within seven days from today, the objection of limitation shall not be taken against them and such appeal, if filed, shall be decided in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. ( Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge August 11,2011 rk