FIRM SHYAM BABU SHRI KRISHAN Vs. MAHESH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M. No. 16376 -CII of 2009

(2.) FOR the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 149 days in re -filing the revision petition is condoned, subject to all just exceptions.

(3.) THIS revision petition is preferred by the petitioner -tenant against the order dated 04.01.2007 passed by the Rent Controller, Rewari on an application filed under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Evictions) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), whereby the fair rent of the demised premises has been increased from Rs.150/ - to Rs.650/ - per month, as well as against the order dated 03.06.2008 passed by the Appellate Authority, Rewari dismissing the petitioner's appeal against the aforestated order of the Rent Controller, Rewari, being barred by limitation. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the impugned orders. A perusal of the order passed by the Appellate Authority reveals that only explanation tendered for the delay was that the petitioner's counsel before the Rent Controller did not supply the certified copy of the order in time. However, the Appellate Authority has found as a matter of fact that even after receiving the certified copy, the petitioner did not prefer the appeal for a period of 53 days which simply suggests his carelessness and negligence. Howsoever liberal approach a Court may adopt in condoning the delay, there can be no premium on the sheer negligence, irresponsible and casual approach of a litigant. In this view of the matter, no interference in the order dated 03.06.2008 passed by the Appellate Authority is called for by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Be that as it may and in the interest of justice, I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the order dated 04.01.2007 passed by the Rent Controller, Rewari, whereby the fair rent has been increased from Rs. 150/ - to Rs.650/ - per month. It is urged that the criteria followed by the Rent Controller is contrary to the view taken by a Division Bench of this Court in "Yoginder Mohan v. Krishan Lal,, 2003(3) LJR 791", operative para of which reads as follows: