The judgment emphasizes the importance of truthful pleadings in judicial proceedings and the serious consequences of filing false affidavits. It also underscores the need for adherence to legal principles related to condonation of delay.

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

1. This Civil revision petition under Section 24 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act (for short the ‘Act’) is directed against the order passed by learned Appellate Authority on 30.6.2015, whereby application filed by the respondent for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal came to be allowed.

2. The respondent-tenant suffered an ex-parte order of eviction dated 1.12.2008 and later filed an appeal along with an application seeking condonation of 380 days in filing of the same on the ground that daughter in law happened to visit Shimla on 25.12.2009 and came to know that possession of the premises had already been taken by the petitioner on the basis of ex-parte order of eviction. It was further pleaded that this fact was not in his knowledge and on enquiring knowledge, certified copies of the eviction orders along with relevant record was applied for and thereafter without any further delay, appeal along with application for condonation of delay was being filed.

3. In reply to application, the petitioner denied that the tenant, through his daughter in law, had acquired knowledge of the eviction order only on 25.12.2009 and should, therefore, be put to strict proof regarding such averments.

4. The learned court below, after holding that there were sufficient grounds for condoning the delay, allowed the application.

5. It is against this order that the petitioner-landlord has approached this court and would contend that the findings recorded by the court below are totally perverse and, therefore, deserve to be set aside.

6. On the other hand, Sh. Y.P. Sood, learned counsel for the tenant has not only supported the order, but would claim that the same is immune from interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this court.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have meticulously gone through the records.

7. In order to appreciate the controversy in issue, it would be relevant to first refer to the pleadings and evidence led by the parties.

8. Coming to the pleadings, it would be noticed that the tenant had sought condonation of 380 days delay by offering explanation as contained in paras 2 and 3 of the application which read.

“2. That the appeal is barred by limitation by 380 days. It is submitted that the appeal could not be filed earlier because the applicant was not having the knowledge about passing of ex-parte order of eviction till 25.12.2009 when the daughter in law of the applicant came to Shimla to the tenanted premises and on reaching Shimla she came to know from the neighbours that the possession of the premises has been taken over by non applicant on the basis of ex-parte order of eviction passed by this Hon’ble Court. It is submitted that prior to 25.12.2009 the applicant was not aware about the passing of the eviction order. It is submitted that the applicant is not keeping good health and is under treatment at Delhi. Moreover, no legal and valid service was ever effected upon the applicant in accordance with law and he had no opportunity to know about the passing of eviction order.

3. That the daughter in law of the applicant whom the applicant has appointed as his general power of attorney on coming to know about the fact that the possession has been taken over by the non applicant, engaged Sh. Y.P. Sood, Advocate as counsel to verify that factual position from this Hon’ble trial court. The counsel for the applicant made inquiries from this Hon’ble trial court and from the inquiries made it came to his notice that the ex-parte order of eviction has been passed on 1.12.2008. The counsel of the applicant, therefore, applied for the certified copies of the eviction order on 26.12.2009 as well as the other relevant record which copies were supplied on 1.1.2010. Thereafter the appeal was got drafted by the applicant and the same is being filed without any delay.”

9. The landlord contested the application by filing a reply wherein the contents of the aforesaid paragrap