AJAY KUMAR MITALL,J - (1.) THE short question that falls for consideration by this Court in this revision petition is, whether the appellate authority was justified in declining the prayer of the petitioner-tenants for condonation of delay of 22 days, in filing the appeal ?
(2.) IN order to appreciate the above question, a few facts need to be noticed first : Respondent-landlord filed a petition against the petitioner-tenants seeking the ejectment from the demised premises. The Rent Controller, Ludhiana accepted the petition vide order dated 16.11.1999 and ordered eviction of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the eviction order, the petitioners filed appeal before the appellate authority. Since the appeal was filed after the expiry of statutory period of limitation, an application under Section 15(1)(b) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short "1949 Act") read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short "the Act") was also filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The appellate authority after framing issues and perusing the evidence led by the parties recorded a finding that the petitioner-tenants have failed to establish that there was sufficient cause to condone the delay. The application was thus dismissed and consequently, the appeal was also dismissed as time-barred vide order dated 8.10.2001. It is this order of the appellate authority which has been impugned by the petitioner-tenants in the present revision petition.
(3.) MR . Amit Rawal, counsel for the petitioners submitted that the appellate authority fell in error in declining the prayer of the petitioners for condoning the delay. The counsel submitted that Anil Kumar - petitioner had fallen ill on 9.11.1999 and remained bed-ridden upto 3.12.1999. He, however, contacted his counsel on 4.12.1999 and it was only then he came to know that his counsel had not appeared before the Rent Controller from 10.11.1999 to 16.11.1999 and consequently ejectment order had been passed on 16.11.1999. The counsel further submitted that the petitioner-tenants were represented by their counsel Shri Subhash Sharma, Advocate, but on inspection of record, it transpired that the presence of one Shri S.K. Pathak, Advocate had been marked as their counsel whereas in fact, the petitioners had never engaged him as their counsel. The counsel thus specifically submitted that till 4.12.1999, the petitioners had no knowledge of the ejectment order. After obtaining certified copy of the ejectment order, the appeal was filed on 24.12.1999 and consequently a delay of 22 days had occurred in filing the appeal. On the strength of these facts the counsel submitted that the delay in filing the appeal before the appellate authority was not intentional and thus deserved to be condoned.;