Assa Ram vs Kewal Krishan and Another

V.K. Jhanji, J.—Petitioner, who is a landlord, filed a petition u/s 18-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (briefly ''the Act'') for ejectment of his tenants on the ground that he being a specified landlord is entitled to the possession of the premises for his requirements.

Tenants on appearance made an application to the Court, seeking leave to defend. The said application was allowed and as a result thereof, tenants were permitted to defend the petition. This order is being impugned in the present revision petition.

No one appears on behalf of the Respondents.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, I am of the view that the impugned order calls for no interference by this Court. Tenants in their application for leave to defend stated that premises are non-residential and, therefore, cannot be got vacated u/s 13-A of the Act. Certain receipts were got produced on record. In some of the receipts, word "house" is mentioned and in some receipts, "shop" is mentioned, whereas in some of the receipts, neither "house" nor "shop" is mentioned. According to the Petitioner, word "shop" was added later on. The Rent Controller found that the issues raised by the tenants are triable. From the impugned order, I find that the Rent Controller was right in permitting the tenants to contest the ejectment application as the issues raised by the tenants are such which need further investigation and that can be done on by allowing their application for leave to defend.

Consequently, revision petition is dismissed. No costs.

Petitioner through his counsel is directed to appear before the Rent Controller on 6.8.1993.