- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) The petitioner's appeal against the Rent Tribunal's order dated 11.7.2005 was allowed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 16.11.2007. That order was challenged by the petitioner/tenant by filing a review petition before the Rent Appellate Tribunal on the ground that during pendency of the suit, the percentage of revision of rent was changed. The petitioner did not chose to challenge the original order dated 16.11.2007 otherwise then by filing review petition obviously as he has not filed the writ petition to challenge the order dated 16.11.2007. The review petition was dismissed on 6.2.2009 and the petitioner has approached this Court after delay of one year with a plea that he earlier approached one advocate and the said advocate did not file the writ petition for one year.
(3.) The allegation levelled by the petitioner appears to be quite vague one and not substantiated by cogent reasons. In view of the above reasons, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition and particularly, when it is a matter of revision of rent only. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.;