J.V.GUPTA, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of appellate authority dated September 14, 1988, whereby the appeal filed by the landlord-petitioner has been dismissed as barred by time after having rejected the application for condonation of delay.
(2.) THE application for ejectment filed by the landlord was dismissed by the Rent Controller on May 31, 1986. The application for obtaining the certified copy was filed on June 12, 1986, which was prepared on August 1, 1986. The appeal was filed on August 11, 1986 after the expiry of period prescribed under section 15(1)(b) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, accompanied by an application for the condonation of delay, averring that the applicant/appellant had consulted Shri R.R. Wadhawan, Advocate about the period of limitation for preferring an appeal who had given him wrong advice that appeal could be filed up to August 9, 1986 and as such the applicant under an honest belief had preferred the appeal. The application was contested on behalf of the tenant-respondent. The appellate authority after framing the issues allowed the parties to lead evidence and came to the conclusion that there was no sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the mistaken advice of the Advocate was itself a sufficient ground for condonation of delay. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon 1979 PLR 546: 1981 PLR 142 and AIR 1987 SC 1354. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner-landlord himself was a lawyer and, therefore, on the facts and circumstances of this case, it could not be successfully argued that the mistake was a bonafide one. In any case, argued the learned counsel, it was a matter of discretion for the appellate Court which has been exercised against him and, therefore, there was no ground for interference in the revisional jurisdiction. Moreover, argued the learned counsel, the Rent Controller found as a fact that since the arrears of rent were tendered on the first date of hearing, the ground for ejectment for non-payment of arrears of rent was not available.
(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order as to be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction. It was a matter of discretion with the appellate authority to condone the delay. The same has been declined on cogent reasons. The petitioner-landlord himself being a lawyer could not take the plea that he was misled by the mistaken advice of his Advocate. Moreover, the ejectment application was field only on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent which were tendered on the first date of hearing and, therefore, there was nothing to be interfered with on merits either.;