RAM CHANDER Vs. PURSHOTTAM DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners seek to challenge the order of Additional Rent control Tribunal passed on 18/5/2002 after about six years. An affidavit has been filed explaining the delay in filing this petition by the petitioners which discloses that the initial Eviction Petition was filed in 1989. The tenant Ram chander expired on 12th June, 1998 leaving behind his wife, six sons and two daughters. Later on his son Radhey Shyam expired on 26th November,2000, his wife expired on 26th July, 2003, his other son Jagdish expired on 1st August, 2001, third son Sat Narain expired on 24th December, 2006 and Raj Kumar, fourth son, expired in January, 2000. Petitioners are sons of one of the son of the original tenant. It is stated by the petitioners that they wanted to challenge the eviction order dated 18th May, 2002 but the other legal heirs of late Sh. Ram Chander did not cooperate with them and did not join for challenging the order. It was in month of February, 2007 when execution proceedings were issued by Executing Court that they contacted counsel Mr. A. K. Chhabra who appeared before the Executing Court on 17th August, 2007 and filed objections on their behalf and advised them to challenge the eviction order by filing Civil miscellaneous (Main) before the Court and told them that there was no limitation to file Civil Miscellaneous (Main) and then they engaged another counsel in the high Court who filed the above petition.

(2.) THE petitioners' counsel quoted judgments urging that the powers to condone the delay in approaching the Court had been conferred upon the Courts to do substantial justice to the party by disposing the matter on merits and the purpose of limitation was not to destroy the right but it was founded on public policy fixing a life span for the legal remedy for general.

(3.) I consider that the legal rights of the parties in this case have already been determined by a Competent Appellate Tribunal who had the jurisdiction to determine the legal rights and who after considering and after appreciating the entire case put up by both the parties gave a reasoned decision running into 16 pages. If the petitioner had found any jurisdictional error in the decision rendered by the Rent Control Tribunal, the petitioners were supposed to challenge the decision immediately after it was rendered. Although, the law of limitation does not directly apply to the Writ Petitions, this Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court has held several times that a petition would be barred if it comes to the Court after lapse of a reasonable time. It is necessary to assure finality to the administrative as well the judicial decisions. Those who sleep over their rights have no right to agitate after a lapse of reasonable time.