The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to condone delay in filing applications under section 5 of the Limitation Act and the interpretation of the grounds for ejectment under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.

Vinod K.Sharma, J.

1. CM No. 9852-CU of 2010 Allowed. Application are exempted from filing the certified copies of Annexures A.l & A.2. CMNo.9854-CII of 2010

2. This application under section 5 of the Limitation At has been moved for condoning the delay of 1063 days in filing the application for rehearing of the Civil Revision.

3. It has been averred in the application that due to death of their counsel Shri M.L. Marchia, applicant/respondents were not aware of the listing of the case and therefore, the decision was taken at their back.

4. It is further averred in the application, that it was only when the execution was taken out by the decree holder that they came to know about the decision of the revision petition and the application has been moved immediately thereafter. The application is claimed to be within limitation from the date of knowledge. However, from the date of order there is delay of 1063 days. Application is supported by an affidavit. In spite of notice, no reply has been filed.

5. Consequently, this application is allowed and delay of 1063 days in filing the application is condoned. CM No. 9855-CII of 2010 & CM No. 9853-CII of 2010

6. This application under Order 41 Rule 21 of the Code has been moved for rehearing of the civil revision decided on 22.5.2007.

7. As the absence of the applicant is beyond control an opportunity is given to the applicants to make submissions in support of their case.

8. This court had accepted the revision petition filed by the landlord. The order dated 22.5.2007 passed by this court reads as under:

"The petitioner-landlords had filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short the Act) for ej ectment of the respondents from Shop No. 3545/3, Adalat Bazar, Patiala as per details given in the head-note of the petition. It was claimed that Morari Lal son of Babu Ram was the original owner of the shop in dispute and respondent No. 1 was tenant at the rate of Rs. 60/- per month. Besides the payment of rent, the tenant was also liable to pay house- tax as part of the rent. The property was said to have been sold by Morari Lal to the petitioners and thus, they claimed that they had become owners and landlords while respondent No. 1 became tenant at the rate of Rs. 60/- per month along with house-tax. It was claimed that notice of sale was given to the tenants by the vendor in August, 1978. It was averred in the petition that respondent No. 1 was in arrears of rent and house-tax since 10.3.1978. House- tax was claimed to be 15 per cent on monthly rent. It was also claimed that the shop had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation as it had out-lived its utility. Roof of Chobara had fallen down and there were cracks, sallab and other defects in the shop in dispute. It was claimed that the petitioners wanted to reconstruct the shop in dispute and Chobara. It was also claimed that Chobara can not be reconstructed unless the shop was reconstructed. Other ground on which ejectment was sought was that respondent No. 1 had sub-let the shop in dispute to respondent No. 2 and transferred exclusive possession to him. It was claimed that respondent No. 2 was carrying on the business of selling colours in the shop in dispute whereas respondent No. 1 was carrying on his own independent business at Ghalori Gate, Patiala. Respondent No. 1 was proceeded ex parte, while respondent No. 2 contested the application by filing written statement. The factum of Morari Lal being the landlord was admitted. Rate of rent was disputed as also the liability to pay the house tax. It was pleaded by the contesting respondent that the shop in dispute was on rent with Kundan Lal father of the respondents at the rate of Rs. II- per month. Kundan Lal was said to be doing business in the name of M/s. Kundan Lal Raja Ram and after the death of Kundan Lal, respondents were carrying on the business in partnership under the name of M/s. Kundan Lal Raja Ram. It was furthe