JUDGMENT Surinder Sarup, J.(Oral): This revision petition under Section 24 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter called the Act) has been filed against the order of the Appellate Authority i.e. the Court of Shri R.L. Khurana, Appellate Authority, Solan dated 14.5.1992 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner-landlord thereby confirming the order of dismissal passed by the Court of Shri Rajan Gupta, Rent Controller, Kandaghat, camp at Solan dated 17.7.1991. 2. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner being landlord filed a petition under Section 14 of the Act for eviction of the respondent-tenant from the premises in dispute i.e. Kamla Cottage, Municipal Ward No.8, Jawahar Park, Solan on the ground that the demised premises were let out to Shri R.L. Bhutani around 1950 on payment of Rs.37.50 per month as rent excluding water, electricity charges arid taxes. After his death, Smt. Shanti Devi, the present respondent has stepped into his shoes being his widow. The rented premises are bona fide required by him for own use and occupation since he has retired from service and wants to settle at Solan. Moreover, the building is very old and requires renovation/reconstruction, which cannot be carried out without its vacation. It is also pleaded that the tenant has not paid rent from April, 198 7 onwards. Hence, the eviction petition. 2A. In reply the tenant-respondent admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as also the rate of rent However, it was denied that the premises were let out fully furnished. It was further pleaded that she is contractual tenant and the tenancy commences from month to month. It was also pleaded that the disputed premises are not required by the petitioner for his use and occupation. He is well settled at Delhi and has no intention to shift to Solan. The condition of the building was stated to be in very good and it did not require any renovation or reconstruction. It was disputed that the respondent was in arrears of rent. It was pleaded that the present-eviction petition had been filed with an ulterior motive to enhance the rent. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues:- 1 Whether the respondent is in arrears since 1.4.198 7 as alleged? OPP. 2 Whether the demised premises are required by the petitioner bona fide as alleged? OPP. It was pleaded that the present-eviction petition had been filed with an ulterior motive to enhance the rent. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues:- 1 Whether the respondent is in arrears since 1.4.198 7 as alleged? OPP. 2 Whether the demised premises are required by the petitioner bona fide as alleged? OPP. 3 Whether the respondent is a contractual tenant as alleged? OPR 4 Reliefs. 3. Issue No. 1 was held to be redundant Under Issue No.2 it was held that the demised premises are not bona fide required by the petitioner. Issue No 3 was not pressed. On these findings the eviction petition was dismissed In the Rent Controller. The appeal having met the same fate, the petitioner landlord has come in revision before this Court 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also have examined the record. Two grounds have been pointed out by the learned Appellate Authority for non-suiting the petitioner. First the appeal before the Appellate Authority was barred by limitation by one day Secondly, on merits it has been found that the landlord while appearing as AW-1 has admitted that he has constructed a double storeyed house in Delhi in the year 1987-88 and he is residing therein. He has also stated that the idea of settling in Solan came to his mind in the year 1986-87. It has been observed by the Appellate Authority as follows :- "If the landlord had desired to settle at Solan and lead the remaining part of his retired life at Solan in the year 1986.-87, therein no explanation as to why he took the trouble to construct a double storeyed house in Delhi in the year 1987-88 and he has preferred to file the present petition for ejectment of the tenant in the year 1988 after his house in Delhi has been constructed. The statement of the landlord himself creates suspicion regarding the genuineness of the bona fide need of the landlord to occupy the tenanted premises. The evidence led by the landlord to show the condition of the tenanted premises also is not worthy of reliance. There is also no evidence to show that the landlord is having the requisite means to reconstruct the tenanted premises." 5. The evidence led by the landlord to show the condition of the tenanted premises also is not worthy of reliance. There is also no evidence to show that the landlord is having the requisite means to reconstruct the tenanted premises." 5. Since I propose to remand the case to the Appellate Authority on the point of limitation, I would refrain from giving any finding on the merits of the case. As regards the limitation, the perusal of the record shows that when the appeal was presented in the Office of the Appellate Authority it was found to be within time i.e. the note of die Office dated 4.3.1992. However, the learned Appellate Authority has found the appeal to be barred by time by one day. In this context the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the provisions of Section 24 of the Act. The same provides for entertaining the appeal beyond the statutory period of limitation of 15 days, if the Appellate Authority deems it fit and proper in the circumstances of the case to do so. There is no specific provision for moving an application for condonation of delay in case the appeal is not filed within time. It has been rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the delay could have been condoned on the oral prayer also. This opportunity having been denied to the petitioner, I think it is a fit case where the appeal should be remanded. 6. For the reasons recorded above, this revision petition is accepted. The impugned order of the Appellate Authority dated 14.5.1992 is set aside. He is directed to re-decide the appeal on merits after taking into consideration the noting of the Office that the appeal is within time as also the prayer for condoning the delay, which might be made orally or otherwise before him on behalf of the petitioner. 7. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Appellate Authority, Solan on 12.6.1997. The records of both the Courts below be sent back forthwith.