KAMALJIT KAUR PARMAR Vs. GURINDER SINGH GILL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REPLY to the Civil Misc. Application No. 24808 -CII of 2014 filed in Court today is taken on record.

(2.) OFFICE to tag the same at appropriate place in the file.

(3.) A perusal of the order passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh would go on to show that the leave was granted on the ground that application under Section c of the Act filed by the petitioner -landlady was being contested through power of attorney and therefore, the said power of attorney did not have any personal knowledge of the principal NRI. It is admitted by the counsel for the parties that some of the observations made in the impugned order are part of the observations made in Civil Revision No. 5491 of 2008, which were never the grounds for leave to defend under Section 18 -A of the Act. The order which has been passed does not notice the fact that the attorney namely Col (Retd.) Gurtaj Singh is none else but the husband of the petitioner -landlady, namely, Kamaljit Kaur Parmar. The close relationship between the husband/wife and the authority to initiate the litigation has obviously been missed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh while placing reliance upon Basant Kumar Vs. Romesh Kumar Deora : 2008(4) PLR 313.