MALKIAT SINGH Vs. TARA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by Malkiat Singh, landlord, against the order dated 6.8.2002, passed by the appellate authority, condoning the delay in filing the appeal, subject to payment of costs.

(2.) FACTS which are relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that Malkiat Singh etc. (landlords) filed an ejectment petition against Tara Singh, tenant. Learned Rent Controller, vide order dated 3.4.2001, passed the order of eviction against the tenant. Aggrieved against the same, Tara Singh, tenant filed appeal before the appellate authority. Since the appeal was time barred, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed seeking condonation of delay of 13 days in filing the appeal. The said application was contested by the landlords. On the pleadings of the parties, the appellate authority framed the issue as to whether there were sufficient grounds to condone the delay. Both the parties were given opportunity to produce evidence. After hearing both sides, appellate authority found that there were sufficient grounds to condone the delay of 13 days in filing the appeal. Consequently, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was allowed and the delay in filing the appeal was condoned, subject to payment of Rs. 500/- as costs. Aggrieved against this order of the appellate authority, Malkiat Singh, one of the landlords, has filed the present revision petition in this court.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner landlord submitted before me that no case was made out for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. It was submitted that the ground taken in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act that the counsel told him that the limitation for filing the appeal was 30 days, even though it was 15 days, could not be accepted and could not be made the basis for condoning the delay in filing the appeal, especially when the Advocate had long standing at the Bar. Reliance was placed on the law laid down, in the case reported as The Rajputana Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Malaya Trading Agency, AIR 1971 Calcutta 313 and Syed Mujibur Rahman v. Abdul Azeez, AIR 2001 Karnataka 104.