GURSHARAN SINGH Vs. SATPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has arisen out of an order dated 14.9.1991 of the Rent Controller declining the request of the tenant to contest the application under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the ground that the application seeking leave to contest had not been moved within the prescribed period.

(2.) FEW facts giving rise to this revision petition may be stated, thus : Sat Pal, respondent, filed a petition dated 23.12.1988 under Section 13-A, of the Act seeking ejectment of the tenant-petitioner. Learned Rent Controller ordered the issue of notice to the tenant for 16.1.1989 on payment of process fee and registered covers. The record shows that though the notice was also required to be served through registered covers yet this procedure was not adopted. Registered covers had not been deposited. Notice was only sent in a form prescribed under Order 5 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which broadly indicated that a suit had been filed and the tenant was required to appear in Court on 16.1.1989 at 10.00 A.M. Nothing was indicated in this notice that the tenant was required to move an application within 15 days of service of notice seeking leave to contest, as contemplated by the notice required to be issued as prescribed under the Act. In other words, notice of the petition under Section 13-A of the Act was required to be issued in Schedule II, as contemplated by sub-section (2) of Section 18-A, but the notice in the prescribed form had not been issued. The said notice was served on the tenant. Tenant did not apply seeking leave to contest within the prescribed period of 15 days from the date of service. Tenant appeared through a counsel on 16.1.1989 in the Court of Rent Controller but the lawyers were on strike on that day. The case was consequently adjourned to 23.2.1989 on which date the tenant filed an application seeking leave to contest and supported this application by an affidavit and also prayed for condonation of delay by moving a separate application. Learned Rent Controller did not consider the merits of the application seeking contest but found that the application seeking leave to contest was required to be supported by an affidavit and the affidavit filed by the tenant was only in the shape of verification and no specific allegation was contained therein. It was thus concluded that the cited authorities were not applicable because the application had not been moved within the prescribed period and the allegations made by the tenant had not been supported by an affidavit, the application seeking leave to contest was dismissed. It is against this order, as noticed above, the present revision petition has been filed.

(3.) IN order to appreciate to contention raised by the learned counsel it is necessary to notice the provisions of section 18-A of the Act which read as under :-