Savita Bains vs Akashdeep and Another

Ram Chand Gupta, J.—The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 2.2.2011, Annexure P1, passed by learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar, vide which defence of Petitioner-Respondent No. 1 has been struck off with a further prayer to grant one opportunity to the Petitioner to place on record the written statement.

I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Rent Controller.

Brief facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that ejectment petition u/s 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restrictions Act for ejectment of present Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 from the premises in dispute was filed by Respondent No. 1-landlord. Present Petitioner on receiving notice appeared on 28.7.2010, as is clear from the zimni orders, reproduced by the Petitioner in this petition. Case was adjourned to 1.9.2010. However, as the Presiding Officer was on leave on 1.9.2010 and 2.9.2010 was declared as holiday, the case was adjourned to 27.10.2010, when an application was filed on behalf of the present Petitioner directing the Respondent-landlord to produce original rent agreement, as there was dispute regarding quantum of rent. Case was adjourned to 14.12.2010 for filing reply to that application and consideration. On 14.12.2010, reply was not filed and case was adjourned to 2.2.2011 for filing reply and consideration. The said order reads as under:

Reply not filed. On request case is adjourned to 2.2.11 for filing reply and consideration.

It has been contended that on 2.2.2011 as well, reply to the application was not filed, nor rent note was placed on record and however, without considering the said fact, learned Rent Controller passed the following order striking off the defence of present Petitioner, which reads as under:

Written reply not filed. Perusal of the file reveals that written reply has not been filed by the Respondent despite availing numerous opportunities. Statutory period of 90 has already been elapsed. Written reply has not been filed by the Respondent. Neither written reply filed nor any substantial ground has been pleaded which may justify granting further adjournment for filing written reply. Defence of Respondent is struck off by order. Case is adjourned to 6.5.11 for evidence of Petitioner. PF/DM and list of witnesses be filed within one week from the date of order.

Hence, in view of these facts, there is merit in the argument of learned Counsel for the Petitioner that one opportunity be granted to the Petitioner to file written statement, which is ready with the Petitioner.

As a sequel to my above discussion, the present revision petition is accepted. Impugned order is set aside. Learned trial Court is directed to permit the Petitioner to file written statement within two weeks from today.

Disposed of accordingly.