ASHOK BHAN, J. - (1.) RESPONDENT -landlord (hereinafter referred to as the landlord) filed an ejectment application against the tenant-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) for eviction of the latter from the entire first floor of House No. 1993 Sector 22-D, Chandigarh, on the ground of non payment of rent since 1. 4. 1984 and that the tenant had changed the user of the premises in dispute from residential to non residential.
(2.) TENANT was served and he engaged a counsel. He appeared in Court in the month of June 1986 and tendered the arrears of rent. Case was then fixed for filing of the written statement. No written statement was filed in spite of repeated adjournments. One such adjournments was given on payment of costs as well. Neither the tenant nor his counsel appeared. Rent controller ordered ex-parte proceedings to be taken against the tenant. Rent Controller ultimately passed an ejectment order against the tenant on 30. 9. 1986 and held on the basis of the statement of Ram Kishan (AW1) and Subhash Kumar Sethi (AW2) that the landlord had provided his case that the tenant had not paid rent since 1. 4. 1984 and that he had changed the user of the premises in dispute from residential to non-residential. An appeal was filed by the tenant before the appellate authority on 14. 1. 1987. Along with the appeal, an application under Section 5 of the limitation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was filed for condoning the delay for late filing of the appeal.
(3.) APPELLATE authority was not satisfied with the explanation tendered by the tenant for late filing of the appeal. It was held that the tenant was negligent and he had failed to explain the delay in filing the appeal. Application for condonation of delay was dismissed. As a consequence, the appeal filed was also dismissed being barred by time. The present revision petition has been filed against the order of the appellate authority dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation.;