Harinder Singh vs Gurinder Lal on 3 August, 2011

Civil RevisionNo.7158 of 2010                                                       1




               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                            AT CHANDIGARH

                                                 Civil RevisionNo.7158 of 2010
                                                 Date of Decision : 03.08.2011

Harinder Singh
                                                                   ....Petitioner
                                     Versus
Gurinder Lal
                                                                   ....Respondent


CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG

1. Whether reporters of local news papers 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. Anupam Bhardwaj, Advocate
                       for the petitioner.

                       Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate
                       for the respondent.

RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL)

Vide impugned order dated 16.08.2010 provisional rent of the

demised premises was assessed. The present revision petition has been filed

on 27.10.2010 by the tenant challenging the aforesaid order.

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
any difference between the final order and interlocutory order passed
Civil RevisionNo.7158 of 2010 2

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 the Hon’ble 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 petitioner has prayed that this petition be dismissed as withdrawn with

liberty to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order by way of appeal as

aforesaid.

Since the petitioner is pursuing his remedy by way of instant

revision petition bona-fidely and the Appellate Authority under Section 15

(1)(b) of the Act is also competent to condone the delay in filing an appeal.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, this

petition is ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the

petitioner to pursue his remedy of appeal in terms of the judgment of

Hon’ble the Supreme Court as aforesaid before the Appellate Authority.

In case, any such appeal is filed by the petitioner within 10 days from today

challenging the order dated 16.08.2010, the objection of limitation shall not
Civil RevisionNo.7158 of 2010 3

be taken against him and such an appeal shall be decided in accordance

with law.

Dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.

03.08.2011                                           (Rakesh Kumar Garg)
savita                                                     Judge