Sh. Mohinder Singh vs Mrs. Santosh Kumari and Another

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.—The respondent-landlady filed the instant eviction petition against the petitioner u/s 13A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, "the Act") on 25.10.2010 being a specified landlady on the averments that she retired from the Government service on 31.8.2010 and she fulfilled all the ingredients of Section 13A of the Act and she is entitled to possession of the property in dispute. Upon service of summons, the petitioner-tenant moved an application u/s 18A(4) of the Act for grant of leave to contest, submitting that various triable issues arise in this petition.

However, vide order dated 18.5.2013, the Rent Controller declined the prayer of the petitioner-tenant for grant of leave to defend and directed the petitioner-tenant to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondent-landlady within two months from the date of the order.

Admittedly, no appeal was maintainable against the aforesaid order, yet the petitioner chose to file an appeal against the aforesaid order which was dismissed vide order dated 4.9.2013 by the Appellate Authority holding that the said appeal was not maintainable. Thereafter, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant revision petition, challenging the order of the Rent Controller whereby his prayer for leave to defend has been rejected and has been ordered to be ejected.

It is a matter of record that a caveat has been filed on behalf of the respondent-landlady.

At the outset, Shri S.K. Jain, learned counsel representing the respondent-landlady-caveator has brought to the notice of this Court that possession of the demised premises has been taken by the respondent-landlady in execution of the impugned order of the Rent Controller dated 18.5.2013 on 7.10.2013 through the process of Court and with the help of the police.

The aforesaid fact of taking possession of the demised premises could not be disputed before this Court, though learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to argue that the possession has been taken illegally.

Be that as it may, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the aforesaid order of taking possession of the demised premises in accordance with law, if aggrieved.

No other relief has been claimed in this petition.

Thus, the instant petition has been rendered infructuous. Dismissed as infructuous.