Dismissed

Madan Mohan Manchanda v. Raj Dularia

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Oct 2009CR/7538/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision, the petitioner sought to challenge an eviction order and the dismissal of his second appeal by the appellate authority on limitation of 252 days. The Court found the delay was due to the petitioner's negligence and failure to seek appropriate relief earlier, refusing to condone the same.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed, upholding the eviction order and the appellate authority's decision to dismiss the appeal as time-barred.

Madan Mohan Manchanda Vs Raj Dularia — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Revision No.7538 of 2009 (O&M)

¶3

Date of Decision : 18.12.2009

¶4

Madan Mohan Manchanda .....Petitioner versus Raj Dulari .....Respondent

¶5

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

¶6

Present : Mr.G.S.Bal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶7

-.-

¶8

Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶9

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶10

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶13

This revision petition is directed by the tenant who has been ordered to be evicted by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, vide order dated 3.11.2008, from the ground floor portion (except garage and cattle room) of H.No.1644-45, Tabela Lal Ram Gopal, Near Kila, Main Bazar, ManiMajra, Chandigarh, on the ground that the demised premises is completely unfit and unsafe for human habitation and has almost fallen down, as well as against the order dated 2.12.2009 passed by the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, dismissing the petitioner's appeal against the afore-stated eviction order, being barred by limitation of 252 days.

¶14

C.R. No.7538 of 2009 (O&M) 2

¶15

[2] Ordinarily, the Court's endeavour would be to decide a lis on merits so as to determine the rights of the parties and not to throw a party out of the Court on hyper-technical grounds. It is also true that approach of the Court ought to be liberal in condoning the delay. Conversely, the Court cannot over-look that the law of limitation, even it harsh, has to be applied vigorously.

¶16

[3] From the facts and material on record, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh or to condone the delay of 252 days in filing of the appeal by the petitioner.

¶17

[4] I say so for the reason that as soon as the deceased husband of the respondent filed the eviction petition, inter-alia, on the ground that the demised premises is an old building and wooden battens are worn out and eaten by white ants and termites or that the roof of the building is also leaking, followed by a notice dated 30.4.2001 issued by the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh under Section 329 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act calling upon the owner of the said premises to demolish the same within 7 days, the petitioner-tenant appeared and filed his written statement also, disputing the rate of rent as well as the rent note. Soon after framing of the issues, the petitioner disappeared and was proceeded against ex-parte on 1.11.2006 by the Rent Controller, followed by the eviction order dated 3.11.2008.

¶18

[5] The record reveals that the respondent filed the execution petition immediately and on receipt of the notice in execution, the

¶19

C.R. No.7538 of 2009 (O&M) 3

¶20

petitioner, who obviously came to know about the eviction order, neither filed an appeal nor approached the Rent Controller under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. Rather, the petitioner filed objections against the execution and kept on pursuing the said futile remedy. Pertinently, the respondent-landlady took a specific objection against the maintainability of the objections before the Executing Court, yet the petitioner did not care to follow the right recourse and avail proper remedy. It was only after dragging the execution proceedings for a sufficient long period that he, instead of surrendering possession, filed an appeal after a delay of 252 days.

¶21

[6] The facts would speak for themselves that there can be no premium on the petitioner's negligent conduct.

¶22

[7] Dismissed.

¶23

18-12-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE

Madan Mohan Manchanda v. Raj Dularia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madan Mohan Manchanda v. Raj Dularia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurmail Singh and Anr. Vs Director, Rural Dev. & Panchayats Pb. and Ors.

Rajinder Kumar Vs Kaushalya Devi

Vikas Chawla Vs Banarsi Dass

K K Prabhakaran Vs M/S Hero Exports and Ors.

Jim Health Club & Anr. Vs M/S Maharaja Complex & Anr.

Ram Swarup Vs Ram Swarup and Others