Charan Singh Saini vs Sucha Singh Dhillon on 3 August, 2011

Civil Revision No.2547 of 2011 (O&M)                                                  1



              IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                           AT CHANDIGARH

                                            Civil Revision No.2547 of 2011 (O&M)
                                            Date of Decision : 03.08.2011

Charan Singh Saini
                                                                    ....Petitioner
                      Versus
Sucha Singh Dhillon
                                                                    ....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. Sarju Puri, Advocate
                      for the petitioner.

           ***
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL)

Vide impugned order dated 07.12.2010 provisional rent of the

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

on 18.4.2011 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 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
Civil Revision No.2547 of 2011 (O&M) 2

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.

Thus, in case, any such appeal is filed by the petitioner within 10 days from

today challenging the order dated 07.12.2010, the objection of limitation

shall not 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
 Civil Revision No.2547 of 2011 (O&M)   3