ANAND PARKASH SHARMA Vs. AJAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated Sept. 1, 1992 whereby the learned Rent Controller has granted leave to the respondent to defend the petition for ejectment against him.

(2.) Anand Parkash Sharma, the petitioner herein retired from Government service as a Lecturer in English from the Government College, Ropar on March 31, 1990. He filed an application under Sec. 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act') on Sept. 24, 1992. The tenant-respondent filed an application along with an affidavit seeking leave to defend the said application. By the order under revision, the respondent was granted leave to defend the case. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present revision.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that leave to defend was primarily granted by having regard to few facts earlier supported by the tenant in his affidavit. According to the learned counsel, the tenant earlier denied the owner of the petitioner and further alleged that the petitioner was living at Chandigarh along with his son and, therefore, did not require the premises in question for his personal use and occupation. Learned counsel submitted that the tenant after having been granted leave to defend has admitted the ownership of the petitioner in respect of the premises in question in the written statement but has denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, took a stand that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and there is a plea of adverse possession. Be that as it may, in the facts as pointed out above, it cannot be said that leave could not be granted to the respondent, submitted the learned counsel.