AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
J.V. Gupta, J.—This petition is directed against the order or the Rent Controller dated 19th May, 1987, whereby eviction order has been passed against the tenant u/s 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act as amended (for short the ''Act'').
Lachhman Dass-Landlord filed an original ejectment application u/s 13 of the Act on 10th October, 1986. Written statement thereto was filed on 8th December, 1986. Since he retired from service on 31st October, 1986, he moved an application for amendment of the eviction application and to convert the same u/s 13-A of the Act. The said application was filed on 15th January, 1987. Reply thereto was filed on 27th January. 1987, Vide order, dated 2nd February, 1987. amendment was allowed on payment of Rs. 20/- as costs. Case was to come up on 10th February, 1987, for (Sic)ling the amended petition. On 10th February, 1987, the case was adjourned to 23rd February, 1987 as the Presiding Officer was on leave. On 23rd February, 1987, the amended application was filed and the case was adjourned to 2nd of March, 1987 for reply. No reply was (Sic)led on 2nd March, 1987 and it was adjourned to 9th March, 1987, when the reply was filed and the case was adjourned for filing the joinder and issues to 25th March, 1987. The case was then adjourned (Sic)r issues to 1st April, 1987. At this stage, the learned Rent Controller (Sic)cided the application on 19th May, 1987 on the ground that the (Sic)ant failed to move an application for leave to contest within the (Sic)e prescribed as contemplated u/s 18-A of the amended act.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that no notice as proscribed u/s 18 was issued to the tenant and, therefore, there was no occasion for him to seek permission to contest the application as such. In any case, he was allowed to file the reply thereto which was duly filed and in view of the said reply, the question of granting the leave could be considered. Moreover, According to the learned Counsel, from the order passed by the Rent Controller from time to time, it could not be held that the procedure as prescribed u/s 18-A of the Act was being complied with and, therefore, the case of the tenant could not be prejudiced on that account. In any case, according to the learned Counsel, since the premises was let out for business purposes, it was a fit case for leave to contest so that it could be proved that the landlord was not entitled to seek ejectment from the demised premises u/s 13-A of the Act for his personal occupation.
On the other hand the learned Counsel for the landlord Respondent submitted that since the tenant failed to make an application within the prescribed period for seeking leave to contest the eviction order has been rightly passed by the Rent Controller.
After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the records, I find that the learned Rent Controller never followed the procedure as prescribed u/s 18-A of the Act as amended, and therefore, the tenant could not be prejudiced on that account, moreover, the orders passed from time to time were such that it could not be said that any leave as such was to be sought by the tenant for contesting the application. As a matter of fact the original application was filed u/s 13 of the Act. It was later on that the same was allowed to be amended and converted u/s 13-A of the Act. Thus, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, no eviction order as such could be passed u/s 13-A of the Act on the ground that the tenant had failed to move an application for leave to contest within the prescribed period. Consequently, this petition succeeds; the impugned order is set aside and the parties are directed to appear before the Rent Controller on 15th February, 1989. The records of the case be sent back forthwith. The Pent Controller will consider the question of granting leave to the tenant in accordance with law on the basis of the written statement filed by the tenant to the amended application.