CR No.5349 of 2010
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.5349 of 2010
Date of Decision: August 03, 2011
Smt. Saroj Rani
..... Petitioner
Versus
Rakesh Kumar
..... Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present: Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Neeraj Sura, Advocate,
for the respondent.
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.
This is landlord’s petition challenging the impugned order dated
6.04.2010 whereby the Rent Controller has refused to assess the provisional
rent observing that there is no need to assess the rent since the relationship
of landlord and tenant is denied.
It is useful to refer to the judgement 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 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,
CR No.5349 of 2010
-2-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the petitioner has prayed that this petition be dismissed as withdrawn with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.
Ordered accordingly.
Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner had challenged the
impugned order by way of instant revision petition and he was pursuing his
remedy bonafidely and further that even under the provisions of
Section 15(1) (b) of the Rent Act, the Appellate Authority on showing
reasons can condone the delay for filing the appeal, it is ordered that in case
petitioner files an appeal against the impugned order within ten days from
today, the objection of limitation shall not be taken against him and any
such appeal before the Appellate Authority shall be decided in accordance
with law.
(RAKESH KUMAR GARG)
03.08.2011 JUDGE
manju