IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 6545 of 2007
Date of decision: 10th December, 2008
Paramjit Singh
... Petitioner
Versus
Gurdev Kaur
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Present: Mr. Satinder Khanna, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Gulzar Mohd., Advocate for the respondent.
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
Mr. Gulzar Mohd. has caused appearance for the respondent
landlady Gurdev Kaur.
Mr. Satinder Khanna appearing for the petitioner states that in
the memo of parties, inadvertently, tehsil and district has been mentioned
as Kapurthala. Whereas, it should be tehsil Phagwara, district Kapurthala.
On the oral prayer made by Mr.Satinder Khanna, he is allowed
to make necessary correction in the memo of parties. The correction shall
be initialed by the counsel.
Present revision petition has been filed against the order of
the Rent Controller, whereby he has declined leave to defend to the tenant.
Mr.Khanna has contended that there are triable issues in the present case.
The Rent Controller has not taken into consideration the fact that
necessary ingredient that the landlady had not earlier availed benefit of
Section 13-B, has not been pleaded, inter alia.
Civil Revision No.6545 of 2007 2
Mr. Gulzar Mohd. appearing for the respondent landlady has
stated that strict rules of Code of Civil Procedure do not apply with all its
vigor and strength in the eviction proceedings, as the Rent Controller is a
persona designata and he can evolve his own mechanism and the eviction
petition need not contain each and every fact and it can be proved by
leading evidence, that, Gurdev Kaur, landlady has earlier not availed
benefit of Section 13-B of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act.
In view of the respective submissions made by counsel for the
parties, counsel for the parties are agreeable that leave to defend can be
granted to the tenant, provided taking into consideration summary
mechanism and beneficial provisions in favour of the NRIs, if the Rent
Controller is directed to conclude the proceedings within a stipulated time.
Taking into consideration the submissions made by counsel
for the parties in the present case, Rent Controller is directed to conclude
the proceedings within nine months from the receipt of certified copy of this
order. Both the parties shall be given three effective opportunities to lead
their entire evidence. Parties are directed to appear before the Rent
Controller on 8th January, 2009.
With these observations, present revision petition is disposed
off.
[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA]
JUDGE
December 10, 2008
rps