Civil Revision No.3815 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 3815 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.8.2010 Jagbir Singh …Petitioner Versus Sanjay Bhatia …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr.D.S.Rajput, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Civil Misc. 19029-CII of 2010 In the revision petition, notice has not been issued as yet. Application under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC, for impleading legal representative of deceased petitioner is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The Registry is directed to carry necessary corrections in the memo of parties. Civil Misc. No. 15022-CII of 2010 By efflux of time, prayer for pre-poning of the revision petition has been rendered infructuous. Hence, the present application is dismissed as such. Civil Revision No.3815 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Civil Revision No. 3815 of 2010 The respondent has filed a petition for causing eviction of Jagbir Singh, tenant. He made a statement before the Rent Controller, Rajpura, that he was ready to vacate the demised premises within a period of six months. On the statement made by tenant Jagbir Singh, eviction petition was allowed and the tenant was ordered to vacate the demised premises on or before 12.12.2009. When the period of six months was going to elapse, on 10.11.2009, the petitioner/tenant filed an appeal, along with an application for condonation of delay. It was stated in the application that certified copy of the order dated 12.6.2009, passed by the Rent Controller, Rajpura, was lost, therefore, the appeal could not be filed within time and the tenant was under shock. The Appellate Authority held that since the order was passed on the basis of consent, therefore, no intervention was warranted. In the present revision petition, it is stated that Mr. Rajput was representing the tenant before the Rent Controller and on 12.6.2009, he had to go to Sangrur, therefore, one Mr. Sudesh Goyal, Advocate, caused appearance for the tenant. Neither the tenant could make such a statement nor could it be recorded by the Rent Controller, as Mr. Rajput was not present on the date fixed. Mr. Rajput submitted that this had happened due to change of counsel and the fact that a right legal advice was not given to the tenant. It is too late in the day now to say that the statement, voluntarily made by the tenant and recorded by the Court, was under wrong advice. Furthermore, the conduct of tenant was such that he filed an appeal when the time of six months, granted by the Rent Controller, Civil Revision No.3815 of 2010 (O&M) 3 was going to elapse. Thus, neither the law nor the equity flow in favour of the tenant. Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge August 23, 2010 “DK”