TREHAN AUTO PARTS Vs. KULDIP SINGH SAHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 16.04.2011 passed by Rent Controller, Batala, whereby application for leave to contest filed by the Petitioner -tenant has been rejected and consequently his eviction has been ordered in a petition filed under Section 13 -B of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, by the Respondent -landlord.

(2.) THE Petitioner was served in the eviction petition on 18.03.2006. However, he put in appearance in the Court on 26.04.2006 and filed the application for leave to defend along with an application for condonation of delay. Vide impugned order, the application for condonation of delay has been rejected and consequently his application for leave to defend has also been declined. Admittedly, the application for leave to contest had been filed by the Petitioner beyond the statuary period of limitation i.e. 15 days from the service of summons upon him.

(3.) THE argument raised by learned Counsel for the Petitioner is not tenable in view of the law settled by a catena of judgments on this controversy. In fact, it is clear from the language of Section 18(A)(4) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 that in case leave to defend is not granted, nothing survives and the eviction of the tenant is to be ordered. The view of this Court is fortified by judgment dated 09.11.2010 rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in Anwar 'Ali v. Gian Kaur' passed in Civil Revision No. 1493 of 2010.