Shri B.D. Thapar vs Shri Pal Singh

J.V. Gupta, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller, Amritsar, dated October 4, 1986, passed on an application u/s 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, (hereinafter called the Act).

Pal Singh, Respondent, filed the ejectment application u/s 13-A of the Act, claiming himself to be a specified landlord, as defined u/s 2(hh) of the Act. According to him, he retired from the Central Government Ordinance Depot, Delhi Cantt, on June 4, 1973, as a Subedar. He continued to be a Govt of India employee till retirement. The tenant was inducted on the demised premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 450/-. He filed the present eviction application within one year of the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1985. It was pleaded that he required the premises for his personal bona fide necessity as he wanted to shift from Delhi to Amritsar. Summons were issued to the tenant in the form specified in Schedule II. In the said summons, it was clearly stated,-

Now, therefore, you are hereby summoned to appear before the Controller within fifteen days of the service thereof and obtain the leave of the Controller to contest the application.......

On the top of the summons, the Peshi date was given as August 14, 1986. Though the summons were issued on July 3 1986, and duly served, but admittedly the tenant did not file any application within fifteen days thereof. However, on August 14, 1986, he moved the application seeking permission of the Controller to defend the ejectment application. Along with the said application, he also moved another application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay in filing the application for leave to contest the ejeetment application. According to the tenant, he was under the impression that he was to appear before the Rent Controller on August 14, 1986, the date fixed and, therefore, he did not move the application within fifteen days, as given in the summons Thus, the delay on his part was not intentional However, the only ground given in the application for leave to contest the ejectment application was:

The landlord is not entitled to seek ejectment of the present Petitioner as he has got sufficient accommodation for him and also got vacated other property from the other tenants and rented out the same to some other persons.

Surprisingly enough, no affidavit was filed anlong with the said application. Subsequently, an affidavit dated August 23, 1986, was filed in support of the said application. In reply to the said application, the landlord denied the said allegations. The learned Rent Controller found that the application for leave to defend having been filed after the specified period of fifteen days from the service of specified summons upon him, could not be entertained. It was also found that there was no substantial defence which could be put up by the tenant, nor there was any triable issue. Consequently, it was held that it was a fit case where the permission to contest the ejectment application should be refused. Consequently, the eviction order was passed on October 4, 1986. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant has filed this revision petition in this Court.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the application for leave to contest the ejectment application could not be held to be barred by time as the date given on the summons was August 14, 1986. Though in the summons, fifteen days period was mentioned for appearing before the Rent Controller, the tenant was mislead by the said date It was also contended that a case was made out for granting leave to contest the ejectment application, but the Rent Controller declined the (sic) arburarily.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this revision petition.

For filing an ejectment petition u/s 13-A. form of summons is prescribed under the Act itself, as given in Schedule II thereof. It has been categorically provided therein that the application to obtain the leave of the Controller to contest the application for eviction u/s should be filed within 15 days of the service thereof. Thus, it could not be successfully argued that the tenant was misled in any manner In any case, even if we assume that the application to defend was filed within time, even then, no case was made out for granting leave to contest the ejectment application. The only ground taken in the application for leave to contest the ejectment application, as re-produced in the earlier part of this judgment, was not sufficient for granting the leave. The allegations made therein are too vague. The tenant must have given the particulars of the alleged sufficient accommodation with the landlord and the details of the other property alleged to have been vacated by the other tenants and rented out by the landlord. Since no such details were given, the allegations were very vague and on those allega-gations, no leave as such could be granted.

No other point arises, nor has been argued.

Consequently, this revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs. The learned Counsel for the tenant refused to give the undertaking for vacating the demised premises. Therefore, no further time could be granted for vacating the same.