PUNIT AHLUWALIA (NRI) Vs. GURJEEWAN GAREWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord-petitioner has a grievance that the learned Rent Controller granted the plea under Section 18-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act filed for the leave to defend by the respondent-tenant for inappropriate reasons. The service upon the respondent was effected through learned District Court Counsel representing her. That order had been granted on an affidavit-supported plea filed by the petitioner herein to the above effect. However, none entered appearance on behalf of the respondent-tenant inspite of the fact that appearance was awaited. On point of fact, it may be indicated that service had been effected upon the learned District Court Counsel for appearance before this Court on 30.3.2010. However, none has appeared on that date and the matter was adjourned to 26.4.2010. On that date too, none entered appearance on behalf of the respondent and the matter was adjourned to 12.5.2010. It was on that date that the arguments on behalf of the petitioner were heard. None turned up on behalf of the respondent on that date either. The judgment was reserved.

(2.) It is apparent, from the impugned order itself, that in granting the plea under Section 18-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the learned Rent Controller was influenced by the fact that an earlier plea raised by the respondent-landlord for ejectment of the respondent-tenant from the tenanted premises on an averment of personal necessity had been negatived and an appeal against that order is pending consideration before the learned Appellate Authority. It also weighed with the learned Rent Controller that the respondent-landlord could not have had a resort to the provisions Section 13-B of the Act in view of the fact that he acquired title to the tenanted premises long after the same had been rented out to the petitioner tenant and a controversy about the validity of acquisition of title (by the predecessor-in-interest of the landlord) is pending consideration before the Civil Court.

(3.) It was argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the foundational premise of the impugned order is not acceptable in view of the fact that the respondent-tenant could not be heard to raise a plea with regard to the pendency of the litigation about title of the house in dispute. The factual facet of the other plea was not denied.