KIRTAN Vs. H S MALIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 , notice only qua the orders striking the defence of respondent No. 4 was issued. The petitioner, in fact, never filed any written statement, so the question of striking off his defence could not arise. That is why notice was issued. However, the impugned order could be interpreted to mean that the petitioner was disallowed an opportunity to file a written statement. So, it is to be seen whether the Court acted arbitrarily in so ordering. Admittedly the petitioner was served for and put in appearance on November 29, 1980. He was allowed more than 2 months time to file the written statement on or before Feb. 13, 1981. Instead of filing the written, he moved an application under Order 1, rule 10 Civil Procedure Code for deleting his name from the array of the parties. The application being wholly frivolous was rightly dismissed. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the Rent Controller acted arbitrarily in declining another opportunity to the petitioner to file the written statement. In spite of that it being only the first date, the learned counsel for the contesting respondent has no objection if the petitioner is allowed an opportunity to file the written statement within 15 days from today subject to the payment of Rs. 200 as costs. I order accordingly the revision petition stands allowed to this extent.