Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amrit Kaur And Others vs Jiwan Kumar Singla on 10 March, 2014
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Civil Revision No. 7428 of 2013 -1-
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Civil Revision No. 7428 of 2013
Date of Decision: 10.3.2014.
Amrit Kaur and others .......Petitioners
Versus
Jiwan Kumar Singla .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate
for the petitioners.
****
SABINA, J.
Petitioners have filed this petition challenging the orders dated 18.12.2012 (Annexure P-4) and 24.5.2013 (Annexure P-6).
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.
In the present case, respondent had filed petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 seeking ejectment of the petitioners from the demised premises. The said petition was conditionally allowed by the Rent Controller vide order dated 11.2.2011. Petitioners were granted 45 days time to deposit the arrears of rent, failing which they were held liable to hand over the vacant possession of the premises in question to the respondent.
Petitioners approached the Executing Court on 21.3.2011 for permission to deposit the rent but the said application was adjourned to 1.4.2011 and notice was issued to the decree holder. Respondent filed the execution petition on 2.4.2011. Singh Gurpreet 2014.03.13 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Civil Revision No. 7428 of 2013 -2- The objections filed by the petitioners were dismissed on the ground that the arrears of rent had been deposited after the period of limitation. The Appellate Authority vide order dated 28.10.2011 allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the Executing Court for a fresh decision and it was held that the arrears of rent had been deposited by the petitioners within the prescribed period. The Executing Court came to the conclusion that the arrears of rent had been deposited after the prescribed period and the possession of the demised premises had already been taken by the decree holder. Therefore, the objection petition was dismissed and the execution petition filed by the respondent was disposed of. Aggrieved against the said order, petitioners preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court.
Paras 3 and 4 of the impugned order dated 24.5.2013 read as under:-
" The reply was not filed. Thereafter the case was also adjourned for filing reply on payment of costs but instead of payment of costs and filing reply, the learned counsel for the appellant has moved an application for returning of the appeal. In this application it is mentioned that the appeal is not maintainable, hence the same be returned to the appellants for filing it before the appropriate authority. I have heard both the learned counsel of the parties. The appeals against the orders of learned Rent Controller are filed under the provisions of Section 15 of East Punjab Rent Restriction Act and there is no provision of returning the appeal in the said act. If the appeal is found to be not maintainable the only recourse before the court is to Singh Gurpreet 2014.03.13 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Civil Revision No. 7428 of 2013 -3- dismiss such an application on the ground of maintainability. By moving an application for returning of appeal, it has been clearly admitted by the appellants that the appeal in the present form is not maintainable before this court. Hence as there is no provision to return the appeal under the provisions of Section 15 of East Punjab Rent Restrict Act, the appeal is ordered to be dismissed being not maintainable."
Learned counsel for the petitioners has stressed that the appeal filed by the petitioners before the Appellate Authority was maintainable. However, a perusal of para 3 of the impugned order reveals that the petitioners had prayed that the appeal be returned to them. Therefore, whether the appeal was ordered to be returned or was dismissed as not maintainable, did not make any difference so far as the case of the petitioners is concerned. Possession of the premises in question was taken by the respondent in the year 2011.
Hence, at this stage no ground for interference by this Court is made out.
Dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE March 10, 2014 Gurpreet Singh Gurpreet 2014.03.13 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh