ARUN KUMAR Vs. SAT PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 30.11.2010 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh by which defence of the Petitioner was struck off on the ground that he did not file the written statement in time.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that notice in the eviction petition was issued or. 10.02.2010 for 04.05.2010. On the adjourned date, the Petitioner had appeared through counsel and case was adjourned to 17.07.2010 for the purpose of filing of written statement. On 17.07.2010, written statement was not filed and the case was adjourned on the request of counsel for the Petitioner. On the adjourned date, again written statement was not filed. At that time, the Petitioner had filed an application for production of certain documents by the Respondent/landlord. A copy of the application was supplied and the case was adjourned to 04.09.2010 for filing of reply. On 04.09.2010, the Court was on leave, therefore, the matter was taken up on 06.09.2010 and it was adjourned to 30.10.2010 for the same purpose. On 30.10.2010, no reply was filed by the Respondent/landlord, but still the application filed by the Petitioner for production of documents was dismissed and the case was adjourned to 30.11.2010 for filing of written statement. On the said date also, the written statement was not filed and as such, the defence of the Petitioner was struck off.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has made two submissions. Firstly, the written statement could not be filed earlier as the Petitioner wanted to prepare the written statement on the basis of the documents which are sought to be produced by the Respondent/landlord. However, the application for production of documents was dismissed and on the next date, the defence of the Petitioner was struck off but now he is ready with the written statement. Secondly, the proviso to Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short "CPC"] is not held to be mandatory.