MOOL SINGH Vs. RAM NATH AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant's revision petition under Sec. 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, against an order of the Appellate Authority dismissing his appeal as barred by time.

(2.) The Respondent applied under Sec. 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act for the eviction of the Petitioner from the premises No. 110, Krishan Nagar, Simla. By his order dated April 29, 1974, the Controller, Simla, allowed the petition and directed the Petitioner to put the Respondent in possession of the premises. An appeal was filed by the Petitioner before the Appellate Authority, Simla on July 5, 1974. If regard be had to the date of the order of the Controller, the appeal had to be treated as barred by time in as much as on that basis the limitation expired on May 14, 1974. But in paragraph 5 of the memorandum of appeal the Petitioner asserted that when the case was taken up on April 25, 1973 (this appears to be an error for April 24, 1974), the Controller had told the Petitioner that he would call his counsel when Judgment would be announced and that the Petitioner need not come and that "no date was fixed for announcing the judgment". In the same paragraph, the Petitioner adds that on May 18, 1974, he was informed by the Controller that the eviction order had been made against him on April 29, 1974. The Petitioner further stated that he had submitted before the Controller that neither he nor his counsel had been informed of the date of the order nor had they been sent for at the time the order was announced. Upon this, the Petitioner says, the Controller told him that he was merely required to announce the order in court and not to send for counsel for the parties and inform them of the order. Subsequently, an affidavit was also filed by Shir S.S. Ahuja, Advocate, who appeared as counsel for the Petitioner before the Controller, that on April 25, 1974 (this again is an error for April 24, 1974) the Controller did not fix any date for decision but had reserved Judgment and it was to be communicated later to counsel or the parties. Shri Ahuja has also averred that the order was never communicated to him or announced in his presence. The appeal was resisted by the Respondent on the ground that it was barred by limitation. An application was made by the Respondent for an order dismissing the appeal. Paragraph 4 of that application states that according to the record the Controller never told the Petitioner that he would call his counsel when judgment was announced, and that on April 24, 1974, the Controller stated that he would announce the order on April 29, 1974. Paragraph 5 of the application states that the Petitioner was informed by the Respondent on 2nd or 3rd of May, 1974, of the order of the Controller. The paragraph has been sworn partly to the personal knowledge of the Respondent Om Parkash and partly on information derived from the record.

(3.) The Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal, holding that the Petitioner had not established that the order dated April 24, 1974, fixing April 29, 1974, for pronouncement of Judgment had not been announced in the presence of counsel for the Petitioner and that instead Judgment had been reserved.