Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 15 (PNJ)

Lachhman Dass v. Om Parkash (Died) Through L. Rs.

2003-01-08

JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR

body2003
Judgment J.S.Khehar, J. 1. The petitioner-landlord filed an ejectment application under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 seeking ejectment of the respondent-tenant by raising a large number of grounds. The ejectment application was dismissed by the Rent Controller on 1.6.1989. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the Rent Controller on 1.6.1989, the petitioner-landlord preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The aforesaid appeal was instituted on 8.8,1989. The registry recorded an objection on the appeal, namely, that the appeal had been preferred beyond the period of limitation. In this behalf, it was asserted that the petitioner-landlord had moved an application for obtaining a copy of the judgment rendered by the Rent Controller on 1.6.1989 hereafter it was prepared on 19.6.1989 and delivered on 2.6.1989. 2. On the aforesaid objection raised by the registry, the petitioner-landlord moved an application for condonation of delay. The solitary contention raised by the petitioner in his application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was that the registry has wrongly stated in the certified copy that it had been prepared on 19.6.1989 whereas, it had actually been prepared on 18.7.1989. It was contended that if the certified copy of the order passed by the Rent Controller is taken to be prepared as on 18.7.1989, the appeal preferred by the petitioner-landlord would emerge to have been filed within the period of limitation. 3. The Appellate Authority after examining the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner-landlord arrived at the conclusion that certified copy of the order passed by the Rent Controller had been prepared on 19.6.1989 and not on 18.7.1989 as suggested by the petitioner-landlord. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the petitioner-landlord was found to be time barred and as such the same was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 27.11.1989. 4. Aggrieved with the order passed by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner-landlord has approached this Court by filing the instant petition. The solitary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Appellate Authority erred in arriving at the conclusion that the certified copy of the order was prepared on 19.6.1989 whereas, it should have been concluded, on the basis of the statement of the petitioner-landlord, as well as the affidavit filed by him, that it had been prepared on 18.7.1989. It is not possible for me to accept the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The effort of the petitioner is to establish that the official record of the Court bears a wrong date. It is also the effort of the petitioner to establish that the date of preparation of the certified copy of the order of the Rent Controller had intentionally been interpolated. A heavy burden lies on the petitioner-landlord to discharge the aforesaid burden. No cogent evidence has been brought to the notice of this Court on the basis of which it could be concluded that the date of preparation of the certified copy of the order of the Rent Controller has been changed from 18.7.1989 to 19.6.1989. In view of the above, I am satisfied that the Appellate Authority correctly concludes that the certified copy of the order passed by the Rent Controller was prepared on 19.6.1989. 5. It would be improper on the part of this Court, if reference is not made to the decision rendered by the Apex Court in N.Balakrishan v. Krishnamurthy, (1999-1)121 Punjab Law Reporter 462, on which emphatic reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment observed as under:- "It must be remembered that in every case of delay, there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy, the Court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay, was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time, then the Court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. While condoning the delay, the Court should not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a loser and he too would have incurred quite large litigation expenses. It would be a salutary guideline that when Courts condone the delay due to laches on the apart of the applicant, the Court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss". It must be borne in mind that he is a loser and he too would have incurred quite large litigation expenses. It would be a salutary guideline that when Courts condone the delay due to laches on the apart of the applicant, the Court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss". Learned counsel for the petitioner states that a liberal view should be taken on the issue of condonation of delay and in the present case, delay, if any, in filing the appeal, should have been condoned. It is further contended that the petitioner-landlord would be ready and willing to compensate the respondent-tenant with adequate costs as has been suggested in the judgment of the Apex Court (extracted above). In order to compensate him, I have applied my mind to the conclusions drawn in the aforesaid judgment. In my view, the said judgment is clearly inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, In the present case, the contention of the petitioner-landlord is that there is no delay in filing the appeal; and further that the delay as noticed by the registry in filing the appeal is based on an interpolation on the certified copy of the order of the Rent Controller. In view of the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-landlord, it was clear that the petitioner-landlord does not claim condonation of delay in filing the appeal. His expressed case is that there was no delay in filing the appeal before the Appellate Authority. 6. In view of the above, it clearly emerges that the appeal filed by the petitioner-landlord before the Appellate Authority was belated and beyond the period of limitation. No application for condonation of delay was field by the petitioner-landlord. As such, no occasion arises for taking a liberal view and condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 7. For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in this petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.