JUDGMENT
J.V. Gupta, C.J.
1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller dated March 18,1988, whereby the application under Section 13 A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act as amended, was dismissed ex-parte.
2. The landlord filed the ejectment application under Section 13-A of the Act aforesaid. Notice of the same in the form prescribed under Sub-section (J) of section i8-Aofthe Act, was given to the landlord. Summons were served on him on March 9, 1988 According to the said summons, the tenant was to appear before the Rent Controller within 15 days of the service thereof and to obtain the leave of the Controller to oppose the application for eviction under Section 13-A. Before the expiry of 15 days from the service of the summons, the learned Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment application on March 18, 1988, without waiting for the affidavit, if any, of the tenant in reply to the ejectment application under Section 13-A.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the procedure followed by the Rent Controller was wrong and illegal. Since the tenant was entitled to obtain the leave of the Rent Controller within 15 days of the service of summons, he should have waited for that time and in case after the expiry of the said period, the tenant did not appear before the Rent Controller, then, in view of the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 18A of the Act, it will be deemed that the tenant had admitted the averments made in the application for ejectment. Thus, argued the learned counsel, the case should be remanded to the Rent Controller for deciding the matter afresh after hearing the tenant on merits, if any.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the tenant-respondent Submitted that there was no occasion for him to make an application for leave to contest as the matter was decided prior to the expiry of 15 days Moreover, the ejectment application had been dismissed on merits and, therefore, there was nothing to be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the procedure adopted by the learned Rent Controller was not in accordance with the provisions of Section 18A of the Act. In case the tenant failed to appear after the service of the summons on the expiry of 13 days, the averments made in the ejectment application were deemed to be accepted in view of the provisions of sub section (4) of Section 18- A of the Act. That being so, there was co occasion for the learned Rent Controller to record the evidence and to dispose of the application ex parte prior to the expiry of 15 days period.
6. Consequently, this revision petition succeeds The impended order is set aside The parties have been directed to appear before the Rent Controller on February 18, 1991. The tenant undertakes to file this reply, if any, within 15 days thereafter.