- (1.) This petition is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority, accepting the appeal of Sadhu Ram tenant, and setting aside the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller.
(2.) Learned counsel for Sarvshri Sadhu Ram and Faqir Chand (hereinafter referred to as the tenants) raised a preliminary objection that this revision petition under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (for short the Act) filed against the order of the Appellate Authority after 93 days, was barred by limitation. Admittedly the Act, though prescribing limitation for filing an appeal against the order of the Rent Controller, does not prescribe any period of limitation for filing the revision petition. As such learned counsel for Sarvshri Madhu Sudan Lal, Baikunth Nath and Ish Kumar (for short the landlords) placed reliance on a Single Bench decision of this Court in Rajinder Kumar v. Dr. Rajwant Rai Sood. (1983) 1 Rent CJ 40 to the effect that since no period of limitation is provided for filing revision petition in the High Court. the question of condonation of any delay under Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act does not arise. Nevertheless, learned counsel for the tenants referred to Section 3 of the Limitation Act laying down that subject to the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 (inclusive every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed, although limitation has not been set up as a defence. Reliance was then placed on subsection (2) of Section 29 of the Limitation Act which is in the following terms:- "29. Savings. (1) xx xx xx (2) Where any special or local law Prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the Schedule, the provisions of Section 3 shall apply as if such period were the period prescribed by the Schedule and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law, the provisions Contained in Sections 4 to 24 (inclusive) shall apply only in so far as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law." Of the abovequoted Section 29(2) the two essential ingredients are: (i) the special or local law prescribes a period of limitation; and (ii) the said period of limitation is different from the period prescribed by the Schedule. As said above, admittedly, Section 15(5)or any other section of the Act does not prescribe any period of limitation for revision petition. Besides, learned counsel for the tenants was unable to specify any Article of the Schedule prescribing period of limitation for revision petition against an order, passed under the act, by an Appellate Authority. All the same learned counsel for the tenants made a vain attempt by referring to Art. 131 of the Limitation Act prescribing limitation of 90 days for revision petition under the Civil P.C. or the Cr.P.C. The learned counsel conceded that the present petition did not fall within the ambit of Article 131. He then had recourse to Art. 137 prescribing three years limitation for "any other application for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in the Division." Assuming that Article 137 is applicable, one fails to see how the present petition filed within the three years can be held to be barred by time. The other important aspect of the matter is that unless the Act prescribes limitation for filing a revision petition, for the applicability of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, it cannot be said that period of limitation prescribed is different from the period prescribed by the Schedule. For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the tenants, it is, therefore, rejected.
(3.) Adverting now to the merits, the salient facts are that the landlords applied for the eviction of the tenants on several grounds, inter alia, non-payment of rent. The arrears of rent having been paid, the eviction was sought on the surviving grounds. The Rent Controller ordered the eviction on the grounds of subletting, change of purpose for which the property was let out. impairing the value and utility thereof and raising unauthorised construction.;