VARIND JAIN Vs. SATINDER SINGH CHADHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has assailed the order dtd. 1/11/2018 passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh vide which the application filed by the respondents for restoration of the rent petition was allowed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though the rent petition has been restored by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, but the conduct of the rent-petitioners was not such that would have attracted indulgence of the Court by ignoring delay in moving the application for restoration of the rent petition. Para No.3 of the application for restoration of rent petition was suggestive of the fact that the case was adjourned for 23/1/2018, but the counsel for the rent-petitioners noted the wrong date as 23/2/2018 in place of 23/1/2018. In fact the petition was dismissed in default on 20/2/2018 and not on 23/1/2018. If the delay is counted from 20/2/2018, the filing of application would be barred by 5 days only. Petitioner has highlighted the conduct of the rent-petitioners in filing reply to the application and the said stand of the present petitioner ought to have attracted penal costs for restoration of the rent petition. 4.Learned counsel further contended that the trial Court was not justified in invoking inherent jurisdiction under Sec. 151 CPC in view of the aforesaid facts on record.