JUDGMENT Permod Kohli J. (Oral) :-Order dated 24.06.1985 passed by Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar as an Appellate Authority under Section 9 of the Punjab Premises and Land (Eviction & Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has been challenged in the present petition. 2. Vide impugned order, the Commissioner has set aside the order dated 14.05.1980 passed by the Collector, Kapurthala under Section 5 and 7 of the aforesaid Act dismissing the application of the respondent-Municipal Committee, Kapurthala for eviction of the petitioner herein from the premises measuring 16’6"x24’6". Respondent No.1 initiated proceedings under Section 5 and 7 of the Act against the present petitioner and for damages on the allegations that the site in question was leased out to the petitioner herein on lease for five years @Rs.167/- per month. It was stated that no legal and valid agreement was ever executed by the allottee in favour of the Municipal Committee although the possession of the site was given to him. It was further alleged that four shops and flat have been constructed without the permission of the Municipal Committee and rented them to respondent Nos.2 to 6. The Municipal Committee under the instructions of the Punjab Government has abolished the subletting of plots given to the bidders by the Municipal Committee and terminated the licence of the allottee (petitioner) vide notice dated 18.09.1975 by pasting it on the door of the premises. It was accordingly alleged that allottee is in unauthorized possession. To substantiate the claim for damages, it was stated that the allottee is receiving rent @300/- per month from respondent No.3 and 4, @Rs.60/- per month from respondent No.5 and @Rs.60/- per month from respondent No.6. He has also not paid the rent from May, 1977 to January 1978 @Rs.160/-. 3. The eviction proceedings are, however, contested by the present petitioner on the ground that rent deed has been executed, which is in possession of the Municipal Committee and that the allottee was entitled to raise construction and cannot be evicted under these proceedings. He further contended that allottee has been allowed to construct the building and he is not unauthorized occupant. The Collector on consideration dismissed the application for eviction and damages vide order dated 14.05.1980 on the ground that the Municipal Committee has failed to prove that the respondent is in unauthorized possession. He further contended that allottee has been allowed to construct the building and he is not unauthorized occupant. The Collector on consideration dismissed the application for eviction and damages vide order dated 14.05.1980 on the ground that the Municipal Committee has failed to prove that the respondent is in unauthorized possession. It has also been observed that the Municipal Committee has failed to produce the documents relating to the auction proceeding and rent deed. 4. Aggrieved of the above, the Municipal Committee filed an appeal before the Commissioner under Section 9 of the Act who has remanded the case vide impugned order dated 24.06.1985 and asked the Collector to pass a fresh order after giving opportunity to both the parties. It has been mentioned in the petition that the Commissioner has passed the order without hearing the petitioner and even in absence of the counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. His further contention is that an appeal under Section 9 against the order under Section 5 and 7, was required to be filed within 30 days from the date of publication of the order and in the present case, the Collector passed the order on 14.05.1980 whereas the appeal was preferred in the year 1984, precisely on 29.08.1984, which was barred by time but the Commissioner without considering this aspect accepted the appeal and remanded the case back. His further contention is that the present petitioner has raised permanent construction without any objection from other side, which fact was raised before the Collector and is part of the pleadings but without framing any issue, the Appellate Authority has passed the impugned order. Petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court reported as 1991 (1) RLR 615 in case Harbhaian Singh Vs. State of Pb and others wherein following observations have been made:­ “……..It has been vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no evidence on record to show that the land in dispute is not a public premises. The Municipal Committee has not produced any evidenciary document on record to show that the land in dispute is a public premises. The Municipal Committee under the law maintains the record regarding the property belonging to the Municipal Committee. No such record has been produced in this case. The Municipal Committee has not produced any evidenciary document on record to show that the land in dispute is a public premises. The Municipal Committee under the law maintains the record regarding the property belonging to the Municipal Committee. No such record has been produced in this case. In cases where the question of ownership is involved, it is obligatory on the Authority under the Public Premises Act to frame proper issues and give the parties proper opportunity to produce the evidence. The question of title cannot be decided summarily without framing any issues in the case and without giving the parties proper opportunity of being heard. In my view, the order of the Collector suffers from patent illegality inasmuch as he did not frame any issues in the case. There was no documentary evidence before him from which it can be concluded that the land in dispute is a public property. The Commissioner did not appreciate that the order of the Collector suffers from patent illegalities discussed above” 5. In Section 9, the period of limitation for an appeal against the order under Section 5 or 7 is 30 days. In the present case, from the record it appears that the order was passed by the Collector on 14.05.1980 and appeal was instituted before the Commissioner on 29.08.1984 i.e. much after four year. There is nothing on record to show that any application for condonation of the limitation was made or has been considered. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported as AIR 1986 SC 872 in case of Express Newspapers Pvt Ltd. Vs. Union of India wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that where the allottee is permitted to raise construction summary proceedings under the Public Premises Act are not maintainable. 6. None has appeared to represent the respondent-Municipal Committee. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no material on record to find out whether the petitioner was permitted to raise consideration or not? Hence, it is not possible to consider the plea of the petitioner that summary proceedings under the Act are not maintainable. However, the petitioner succeeds on the question of limitation. Section 9 provides 30 days period for preferring an appeal against the order passed in Section 5 and 7. Hence, it is not possible to consider the plea of the petitioner that summary proceedings under the Act are not maintainable. However, the petitioner succeeds on the question of limitation. Section 9 provides 30 days period for preferring an appeal against the order passed in Section 5 and 7. From the copy of the judgment, it is clear that the appeal was preferred after a period of four years and there is nothing on record to show that limitation was ever condoned or even an application for condonation of delay was made. Thus, the appeal before the Commissioner was barred by time. 7. The present petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order of the Commissioner dated 24.06.1985 is hereby quashed. This, however, shall not prevent the respondents from initiating fresh proceedings in accordance with law. ----------------