JOGINDER SINGH Vs. SUNIL KAPOOR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the landlord against the order of both the Courts below, dismissing his petition filed under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") for eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal necessity. Both the Courts below have found that the landlord has failed to plead and prove the provisions of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act. In the present revision petition, notice of motion was issued on 02.09.2013 and the following order was passed:-

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was a technical defect in the eviction petition and has prayed that he may be allowed to withdraw the petition decided by both the Courts below, with liberty to file it afresh on the same cause of action. It is submitted that the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the "CPC") are applicable to the rent proceedings as well, as decided by this Court in the case of Mehtab Singh Advocate v. Shri Tilak Raj Arora and another,1988 92 PunLR 269 and further relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas, 1980 AIR(SC) 1218.

(3.) On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has submitted that the eviction petition filed by the landlord was dismissed on the ground that he has failed to plead and prove the ingredients of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act. It is also submitted by him that where both the authorities under the Act had decided the eviction petition against the landlord, the permission should not be granted to withdraw the eviction petition as it would destroy the finding of fact recorded by the Courts below in favour of the tenant. In support of his submission, he has relied upon a judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Asha Gupta v. Balbir Singh, 2000 2 CurLJ 323 and a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of R. Rathinavel Chettiar and another v. V. Sivaraman and others, 1999 4 SCC 89.