HARJINDER SINGH Vs. VED PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE conspectus of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (for brevity "the Act") and emanating from the record, is that the original applicant Ved Parkash (for short "the landlord") filed the eviction petition to eject the tenant Harjinder Singh (in short "the tenant") from the premises in question, invoking the provisions of Section 13 of The Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973. The tenant contested the ejectment petition, inter -alia pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the petition and jurisdiction of the Rent Controller to adjudicate upon the matter as the land had already been acquired by the Haryana Urban Development Authority under the provisions of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the LA Act"). The Rent Controller rejected the ejectment petition of the landlord, by virtue of order dated 31.1.2006. However, the appeal filed by the landlord was accepted by the appellate authority, by way of order dated 2.11.2006.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the appellate authority, the tenant filed CR No. 6370 of 2006 in this Court. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the CM No. 14035 -CII of 2011 in RA No. 87 -CII of 2011 in CR No. 6370 of 2006 -2 revision petition of the tenant was accepted. The ejectment petition filed by the landlord against the tenant was dismissed. However, liberty was granted to them to claim compensation under the provisions of the LA Act, being interested persons, by means of order dated 30.10.2009, the operative part of which is as under:

(3.) NOT only that, the landlord has also filed an application under section 5 of the Act for condonation of delay of 543 days in filing the review application on the following grounds (paras 4 and 5):