The court upheld the dismissal of the tenant's appeal due to negligence and failure to provide a sufficient explanation for the delay in filing, emphasizing that the law aids the vigilant.

JUDGMENT :

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, J.)

This writ petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the judgment dated 16.03.2013 passed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Sikar (for brevity, "learned Appellate Rent Tribunal") in rent appeal No.37/2009 whereby, the appeal preferred by the petitioner/non- applicant/tenant (for short, "tenant") against the final order dated 12.04.2007 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Sikar (for short, "the learned Rent Tribunal"), allowing an application filed by the respondent No.1/applicant/landlord (for short, "landlord") under Section 9 of theRajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for brevity, "the Act of 2001"), has been dismissed.

2. The relevant facts in brief are that the landlord filed an application under Sections 6 and 9 of the Act of 2001 against the tenant in the learned Rent Tribunal. Vide its order dated 21.03.2006, learned Rent Tribunal passed an order qua prayer of the landlord for revision of the rent under Section 6 of the Act of 2001 whereupon, the landlord filed an application under Section 21(3)(c) for reviewing the order dated 21.03.2006. Despite service, tenant did not put in appearance. Realizing the error apparent on the face of record inasmuch as despite the application being under Section 9 as well along with Section 6, no order was passed qua Section 9, the learned Rent Tribunal reviewed its earlier order and vide order dated 12.04.2007, also allowed the application filed by landlord under Section 9. The tenant preferred an appeal against the final order dated 12.04.2007 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, vide judgment impugned dated 16.03.2013, dismissed the application filed by the tenant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and consequently, the appeal.

3. Assailing the judgment dated 16.03.2013, learned counsel for the tenant submits that the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal did not appreciate that on receipt of the notice of execution filed by the landlord pursuant to final order 12.04.2007, he met him whereupon, the landlord assured him to enter into a compromise. He further stated that the tenant also engaged a counsel as suggested by the landlord himself who also kept on assuring the tenant to do the needful but, failed to do so resulting into the delay in filing the appeal. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the judgment impugned dated 16.03.2013 be quashed and set aside and the rent appeal be restored to its original number for decision on merit.

4. Heard. Considered.

5. While dismissing the appeal on the ground of it being barred by limitation, the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal has observed that the tenant appeared neither to contest the original application nor, to contest the review petition despite service. It was further observed that it has not been case of the tenant that he was not served upon on any of the either occasion. Even before this Court, learned counsel has not urged that he was neither served in the original application nor, in the review petition. Further, no reason is furnished for not contesting the original application/review despite service.

6. As per Section 19(6) of the Act of 2001, limitation for filing an appeal against the final order passed by the learned Rent Tribunal is sixty days. However, in the instant case, the final order dated 12.04.2007 was assailed by the tenant by preferring the appeal as late as on 17.03.2009. The judgment impugned dated 16.03.2013 also reveals that in the execution petition, initially, none appeared for the tenant despite service; but, on submission of another execution petition, his counsel appeared on 20.09.2008 and sought time to file reply and thereafter, on 24.06.2009, time was again sought to file reply meaning thereby the tenant was aware of the final order dated 12.04.2007 from the inception. The explanation furnished by the tenant seeking condonation of inordin