SURINDER MOHAN Vs. PIARA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide order dated 28.08.2010, rendered by the Rent Controller, Gurdaspur, application moved by the petitioner -tenant seeking leave to defend the petition filed by the landlord under Sec. 13 -B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act'), had since been declined. And, in reference to a decision rendered by this Court in M.R.F. Limited and another v/s. S. Major Singh Purewal, : 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 196, the eviction petition was posted for recording the statement of the landlord. But eventually, not only the statement of the respondent landlord was recorded but tenant was also afforded an opportunity to put forth his defence and lead evidence. Meaning thereby, an order of eviction of the petitioner was passed on merits. That is how, petitioner is before this Court and has assailed both the orders i.e. dated 28.08.2010 and 12.11.2014. What has led the parties to this stage: Respondent landlord filed a petition under Sec. 13 -B of the Act and prayed for eviction of the petitioner from residential building/house marked as ABCD in the site plan. Petitioner was served through Munadi and affixation and he appeared before the Rent Controller on 19.10.2009. Concededly, an application seeking leave to contest the eviction petition was moved on 04.01.2010, which was apparently barred by time. As a result, his prayer for leave to contest the proceedings was declined, as even from the date he caused appearance i.e. 19.10.2009, he had failed to move the application within the prescribed period. The conclusion recorded in this regard, reads as thus: -

(2.) However, despite having declined leave to the petitioner to contest the proceedings, in reference to the decision of this Court in M.R.F. Limited (supra); "Refusal of leave to defend to tenant would by itself does not entitle the landlord to decree of eviction. Rent Controller is required to record the statement of landlord and then pass an order if there is a ground for evicting the tenant", the matter was adjourned for recording the statement of the landlord.

(3.) But, the Rent Controller not only recorded the statement of the respondent -landlord, who appeared as AW 1 and his witnesses, but even allowed the petitioner -tenant to lead his evidence and contest the proceedings. The matter was tried on merits and vide order dated 12.11.2014, ejectment of the petitioner was ordered. It was concluded that the landlord was fully entitled to seek eviction of the petitioner under Sec. 13 -B of the Act, as he indeed required the premises for his personal bona fide need. The conclusion recorded in this regard, reads as thus: -