RAM LUBHAYA @ DHAN RAJ Vs. SITA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Eviction petition preferred by the petitioner-landlord was dismissed by the Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur, vide order dated 11.02.2011. As an appeal preferred against the said order was barred by time, Appellate Authority, vide its order dated 10.03.2015, dismissed the application moved by the petitioner under section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, and, consequently, even the appeal. The conclusion arrived at by the appellate authority in support of its order, reads as thus:-

(2.) Concededly, the eviction petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed on 11.02.2011. Exhibit R-1 is a certified copy of the application dated 03.02.2012, moved by one Sumer Chand, in a Rent Petition No.75 of 2007, titled as 'Ram Lubhaya vs. Sumer Chand'. Exhibit R-2 is the reply filed by the petitioner to the said application on 05.03.2012, through Sh.Ajay Bhalla, Advocate, who also happened to be his counsel before the Rent Controller. Petitioner conceded in his crossexamination that the reply dated 05.03.2012 was signed by him. Exhibit R-4 is a certified copy of Vakalatnama, in yet another matter, in favour of Sh. J.R. Gupta and Shri Varinder Gupta, Advocates, which shows that the same was signed by the petitioner on 07.11.2012. Meaning thereby, even post passing of order dated 11.02.2011, petitioner had been regularly visiting the courts and was in touch with his counsel before the Rent Controller. Not just that, he was even engaging counsel and filing replies, etc. That being so, his version that he remained seriously ill and, therefore, could not contact his counsel to ascertain the fate of the eviction petition, is wholly false. The application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the order passed by the Rent Controller dated 11.02.2011 was moved on 14.01.2013 i.e. after a delay of almost 2 years. Further, the application moved by the petitioner for condonation of delay was wholly vague, uncertain and lacked material particulars as even this was not indicated as to how much was the delay the accompanying appeal suffered from. Likewise, even the period during which the petitioner remained purportedly ill was not indicated either. No date was mentioned as to when he contacted his counsel and acquired knowledge qua the order dated 11.02.2011. Apparently, petitioner had been extremely negligent and remiss in pursuing his cause and he consciously did not choose to file an appeal immediately after passing of the order by the Rent Controller dated 11.02.2011. Subsequent institution of the appeal, was thus an after thought.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out as to how the conclusion arrived at by the Appellate Authority was either contrary to the position on record or was erroneous in law.