IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1557 of 2007 Date of Decision : 21.12.2009 Ashok Kumar Taneja and another .....Petitioners versus Subhash Kumar Chauhan .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Ashwani Talwar, Advocate with Mr.Jitin Talwar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Virender Verma, Advocate, for the respondent, -.- 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? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) This revision petition is directed by the landlords whose appeal has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Ambala, vide order dated 25.9.2006, being barred by limitation. The petitioners filed an eviction petition claiming to be owner-cum-landlords of the demised premises comprising a shop, said to have been let out to the respondent. The eviction of the respondent-tenant was sought on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent. The respondent questioned the ownership of the petitioners and an Issue to this C.R. No.1557 of 2007 (O&M) 2 effect was framed. The petitioners led no evidence in support of their ownership or to prove non-payment of rent by the respondent. The eviction petition was, therefore, dismissed for want of evidence. They preferred an appeal after a delay of 192 days and their appeal has also been dismissed being barred by limitation, giving rise to this revision petition. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, counsel for the parties have been heard and the impugned order perused. In my considered view, the petitioners have not been able to satisfactorily explain the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. Their casual approach appears to be the cause of delay and as such, the impugned order dated 25.9.2006 passed by the Appellate Authority, Ambala, does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Faced with this, counsel for the petitioners submits that the findings given by the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority against Issue No.1, namely, as to whether or not the petitioners are owners of the demised premises, are likely to come in their way in a subsequent eviction petition already filed against the respondent. The apprehension, in my opinion, is wholly mis-placed. The impugned order clearly reveals that no evidence, whatsoever, was led by the petitioners against Issue No.1 inviting adverse findings akin to Order 17 Rule 3 CPC. It does not preclude the petitioners to lead evidence in the subsequent eviction petition and prove that they are owner-cum-landlords of the demised premises. If the petitioners lead evidence in the subsequent eviction petition(s), the Rent Controller shall decide the Issue afresh and in C.R. No.1557 of 2007 (O&M) 3 accordance with law, uninfluenced of the observations made in the impugned order(s). Disposed of. Dasti. 21-12-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE