IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3563 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision : 18.08.2011 Saranjeet Kaur and others ....Petitioners Versus Harbir Singh & another ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** Present: Mr. S.S.Rangi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Nahar Singh, Advocate for the respondents. * * * RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL) This is landlord's revision petition challenging the order dated 24.2.2011 whereby his application for passing an eviction order on the ground of non-payment of provisional assessed rent was dismissed. 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:- “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 C.R.No.3563 of 2011(O&M) -2- 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 Rent 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this situation, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has prayed that this petition be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners to challenge the impugned order by way of appeal, as aforesaid. This petition is ordered to be dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to challenge the aforesaid order before the Appellate Authority in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Harjit Singh Uppal v. Anup Bansal (supra). It has been further prayed that since the petitioners were pursuing their remedy of revision petition bonafidely, therefore, the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority be suitably extended. It has been further submitted that even under Section 15 (1)(b) of the Act, the Appellate Authority can condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioners were pursuing their C.R.No.3563 of 2011(O&M) -3- remedy against the eviction order in bona-fide manner, in case, any such appeal is filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 24.2.2011 within one week from today, the objection of limitation shall not be taken against them and such an appeal shall be decided in accordance with law. Dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. 18.08.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) savita Judge