BABU RAM Vs. NARESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order dated 14.6.2005 passed by learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, whereby leave to contest the petition filed by the tenant-respondent under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (Act - for short) has been granted. The landlord-petitioner assails the said order granting leave to contest.

(2.) THE petitioner filed an application under Section 13-A of the Act on 29.9.2004 seeking right to recover immediate possession of the premises in dispute on the ground that he is to retire from service of the Post and Telegraph Department 30.6.2005. Notice was issued and duly served on the respondent on 30.9.2004 for 8.11.2004. In the summons that were issued, it was mentioned that the tenant-respondent is required to get the leave to contest within a period of 15 days from the date of service of summons. The counsel for the respondent signed the power of attorney on 31.10.2004. However, since the report of the process server was not received, therefore again summons were issued and served on the tenant-respondent on 18.12.2004 for appearance on 22.12.2004, but despite service of summons, the respondent did not file any application for leave to contest within a period of 15 days from the date of service of summons. Thereafter, the respondent moved an application on 7.2.2005 for condoning the delay and for permission to grant leave to defend the case. It was stated in the application for condoning the delay as follows :-

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned Rent Controller has recorded no reasons for condoning the delay in filing the application seeking leave to defend the petition. In any case, it is contended that the provisions of the Act being statutory in nature, the application for condonation of delay in filing the petition is not maintainable. Even otherwise, it is contended that the application for leave to defend does not disclose sufficient reasons to grant the relief. Therefore, the learned Rent Controller was liable to accept the application under Section 13-A of the Act and order the ejectment of the respondent. It is contended that leave to defend cannot be granted on mere bald and vague assertions made by the counsel for the tenant-respondent which, even otherwise are not supported by an affidavit.