Punjab Roada And Bridges Development Board v. Gurpreet Singh Walia And ANR

CM-17705-CII-2024 in/and CR No.5842 of 2024 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CM-17705-CII-2024 in/and CR No.5842 of 2024 (O&M) Date of decision : 30.01.2025.

Punjab Roads and Bridges Development Board, through its Joint Secretary ....Petitioner

Versus

Gurpreet Singh Walia and another

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present :

Mr. Ankur Gupta, Advocate for the applicant/petitioner.

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) Tenant is in revision aggrieved of order dated 21.12.2023 passed by Appellate Authority, SAS Nagar, Mohali whereby order dated 31.03.2021 passed by Rent Controller, has been set aside in appeal preferred by the landlord and the matter has been remanded back to the Rent Controller directing him to pass fresh order on the application dated 12.03.2020 whereby landlord prayed for assessment of provisional rent, in accordance with law.

2.

Revision petition has been preferred after delay of more than six months. The explanation offered is that the order was pronounced on 21.12.2023. Thereafter, there were winter vacations. The order could be Deepak Kumar 2025.02.25 14:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CM-17705-CII-2024 in/and CR No.5842 of 2024 (O&M) Secretary Pram Jyoti Arora retired on attaining age of superannuation in the month of February. The incumbent joined only in the month of March, 2024. Legal opinion was received on 16.04.2024. In the meantime, incumbent again got transferred and fresh appointment came three weeks thereafter. By that time the courts were closed for summer vacations. The petition could be prepared only in the month of July, 2024. It took time for vetting and approval. The same was received back by counsel in the month of first week of August, 2024. Thereafter, the same was lost in his office and could be filed in the month of September, 2024 only. 3.

In the considered opinion of this Court, the explanation offered lacks bona fide. Hardly any cause has been pleaded to condone the delay. The revision has been filed after delay of 184 days that too against order directing the Rent Controller to decide application seeking assessment of provisional rent afresh.

4.

In view of above, this Court does not find any reason to condone the delay. Consequently, the application seeking condonation of delay as well as main revision petition are ordered to be dismissed. 5.

Pending application, if any, shall also stand disposed off. January 30, 2025 (Pankaj Jain) Dpr Judge Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No Deepak Kumar 2025.02.25 14:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document