BHAVNESH Vs. RAM PARSHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the petitioners along with Shyam Sunder were the tenants of the disputed premises under respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The latter applied for their eviction on the ground that they were in arrears of rent and had ceased to occupy the premises for a period of more than 12 months from the date of eviction petition and lastly that the premises were in a dilapidated condition and required immediate reconstruction.

(2.) The learned Rent Controller (1) Dharamshala, Shri Indar Ram, passed the eviction order. Against that order, the tenants filed an appeal. The same was decided by the then Appellate authority, Shri R.L Khurana on 08 -03 -1994.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the appeal was listed on 23 -06 -1993 when the appellants made a statement that the premises would be vacated by 31 -12 -1993 and that the appeal be dismissed as having been withdrawn. The respondents did not object to this course being adopted, however, before an order could be passed by the learned Appellate authority, an application was made by the appellants that the statement was made by Shyam Sunder co -tenant under a mistaken belief that the respondent would re -construct the tenanted premises within six months and thereafter would re -let the same to them. It was prayed that the statement, undertaking to vacate the premises by 31 -12 -1993 and withdrawing the appeal be ignored and the appeal be decided on merits.