KASHMIR SINGH BHULLAR Vs. PUNJAB AND SIND BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted.

(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) These appeals arise out of eviction proceedings initiated by the appellant against the respondent Bank under Section 13 (A) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The appellant has sought eviction of the respondent Bank on the ground that the premises are required by him for personal residence since he has now retired from service. The respondent filed an application seeking leave to contest/defend the said proceedings. The Rent Controller, by order dated 17/4/1996, dismissed the said application on the ground that no triable issues had been raised by the Respondent in the application. Thereafter, therent Controller passed the order dated 17/4/1996 and allowed the appellant's application for eviction. The respondent, feeling aggrieved by the said order passed by the Rent Controller, filed revision petitions in the High court. Civil Revision No. 1905 of 1996 was filed against the order rejecting the application to leave to contest/defend the proceedings and Civil Revision No. 1906 of 1996 was filed against the order of eviction. Both these revision petitions have been allowed by the High court by the impugned judgment dated 20/5/1996. The High court has held that leave to defend should have been granted in the matter because the tenants were disputing the alleged requirement of the landlord and that the application for leave to contest/defend was wrongly rejected by the Rent Controller. The High court, therefore, granted leave to defend and consequently the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller was set aside and the matter has been remitted to the Rent Controller.