Jai Gopal Bansal and others vs Govind Ram Verma and others

Hon''ble V.K. Bist, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. Instant petition has been filed challenging the order-dated 03.01.2012 passed by learned District Judge, Haridwar in Misc. Case no. 587 of 2011, whereby petitioners'' application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was rejected.

Briefly stated that respondent no.1 Govind Ram Verma (landlord) moved an application u/s 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972 against the petitioners as well as one Mohan Lal Bansal, which was registered bearing P.A. Case No. 1 of 2003 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Haridwar. It is asserted in the petition that the petitioners were unaware about the pendency of P.A. Case no. 1 of 2003, as no notice was served upon them, moreover, the matter was being pursued by the deceased Mohal Lal Bansal and later on by his legal heirs. It is further asserted in the petition that after the death of Mr. Mohan Lal Bansal, his legal heirs were impleaded as respondent and the petitioners were impleaded as respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4. The release application was allowed on 05.10.2006. Against this order, the respondent nos. 2 & 3 and Smt. Saroj Bala filed an appeal before the District Judge, Haridwar which was registered as Rent Control Appeal no. 137 of 2006 and the petitioners were impleaded as respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4, but they received no notice in the appeal. It is asserted in the petition that the said Rent Control Appeal was listed on 26.09.2011 on which day, the petitioners moved an application for adjournment. On the same date i.e. on 26.09.2011 the respondent no. 2 & 3/appellants got the appeal dismissed as not pressed. About three months thereafter, the petitioners moved an application for condonation of delay u/s 5 of the Limitation Act alongwith the appeal, however the same was rejected by the learned District Judge, Haridwar vide his impugned order dated 03.01.2011.

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners were never served with a notice in the P.A. Case No. 1 of 2003 and due to this reason, they could not come across about the pendency of said P.A. case and first of all they came to know about the said case on 26.09.2011 and on the very day, they moved application for adjournment, which was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Haridwar. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners have no knowledge about the pendency of P.A. case or the Rent Control Appeal, hence the delay condonation application filed by them was bonafide and same should have been allowed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners referred the order dated 29.09.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Jr. Div.), Haridwar, in which it is mentioned that the respondents themselves admit that the petitioners are running the shop in question in the disputed premises.

Respondent no.1 has filed a short counter affidavit. Alongwith the counter affidavit, the respondent no.1 has annexed a copy of the affidavit filed by the petitioner no.1 in P.A. Case No. 1 of 2003, in which in paragraph no. 4 of the affidavit dated 05.12.2005, the petitioner no.1 has stated, on oath, that the petitioner as well as his sons has no concern with the shop in question and he has another fair price shop at Mohalla Dheerwali, Jwalapur, in which his son cooperates with him. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 also referred the order sheet dated 05.12.2005, in which it is clearly written by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Haridwar that both the parties appeared before the Court. Thus, on the basis of record, I am of the view that the petitioners were duly served with the notice and were fully conversant about the pendency of the P.A. case as well about the Rent Control Appeal. The learned Appellate Court has rightly rejected the application of the petitioners filed u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal vide impugned order dated 03.01.2012. I do not find any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the order impugned, which does not warrant interference by this Court. The petition is, thus, liable to be dismissed and is dismissed.