LACHHMAN DASS Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-landlord filed an ejectment application under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 seeking ejectment of the respondent-tenant by raising a large number of grounds. The ejectment application was dismissed by the Rent Controller on 1.6.1989. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the Rent Controller on 1.6.1989, the petitioner-landlord preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The aforesaid appeal was instituted on 8.8.1989. The registry recorded an objection on the appeal, namely, that the appeal had been preferred beyond the period of limitation, in this behalf, it was asserted that the petitioner-landlord had moved an application for obtaining a copy of the judgment rendered by the Rent Controller on 1.6.1989 whereafter it was prepared on 19.6.1989 and delivered on 22.6.1989.

(2.) ON the aforesaid objection raised by the registry, the petitioner-landlord moved an application for condonation of delay. The solitary contention raised by the petitioner in his application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was that the registry has wrongly stated in the certified copy that it had been prepared on 19.6.1989 whereas, it had actually been prepared on 18.7.1989. It was contended that if the certified copy of the order passed by the Rent Controller is taken to be prepared as on 18.7.1989, the appeal preferred by the petitioner-landlord would emerge to have been filed within the period of limitation.

(3.) AGGRIEVED with the order passed by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner-landlord has approached this Court by filing the instant petition. The solitary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Appellate Authority erred in arriving at the conclusion that the certified copy of the order was prepared on 19.6.1989 whereas, it should have been concluded, on the basis of the statement of the petitioner-landlord, as well as the affidavit filed by him, that it had been prepared on 18.7.1989. It is not possible for me to accept the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The effort of the petitioner is to establish that the official record of the Court bears a wrong date. It is also the effort of the petitioner to establish that the date of preparation of the certified copy of the order of the Rent Controller had intentionally been interpolated. A heavy burden lies on the petitioner-landlord to discharge the aforesaid burden. No cogent evidence has been brought to the notice of this Court on the basis of which it could be concluded that the date of preparation of the certified copy of the order of the Rent Controller has been changed from 18.7.1989 to 19.6.1989. In view of the above, I am satisfied that the Appellate Authority correctly concluded that the certified copy of the order passed by the Rent Controller was prepared on 19.6.1989.