LAKHBIR SINGH FINGER PRINTS ADVISER Vs. MEENA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order of the appellate authority, Ludhiana dated December 8, 1989 whereby it was held that the appeal preferred before it was within limitation.

(2.) LEARNED Rent Controller disposed of an ejectment petition by order dated May 27, 1989. The landlady aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Controller, filed appeal on 27 1989 Along with the appeal, an application coupled with an affidavit was also filed for condonation of delay. The matter was considered and the order under revision, the appeal was held to be within limitation. This is what compelled the tenant-petitioner to file the present petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the landlady applied for certified copy of the order on May 27, 1989. Copy was ready on June 13, 1989 and was actually delivered on the same date. Summer vacation in the subordinate courts commenced on June 16, 1989 and ended on July 15, 1989. Admittedly, the period of limitation for filing appeal against the order of the Rent Controller is 15 days If the appeal had been riled on July 16, 1989 the same would have been within limitation. Since the appeal was filed on July 27, 1989, an application for condonation of delay, if any, was also filed along with the appeal. Learned counsel further stated that the entire approach of the appellate authority is erroneous in law and it could not be held that the appeal was within limitation. Learned counsel submitted that if the appeal had been filed on July 16, 1989, it would have certainly been within time, the period of limitation having expired during summer vacation. Since in the present case the appeal was filed on July 27, 1989, it was clearly barred by time.