RAMESH KUMAR Vs. AMARJEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide order being assailed, dated 30.09.2015, ejectment of the petitioner-tenant had since been ordered as a consequence of the order of this court dated 19.02.2015, rendered in CR-979-2011, vide which he was declined leave to contest the proceedings under Section 13-3(A) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short, 'the Act').

(2.) What indeed has led the parties to the present stage; respondent-landlord had filed a petition under Section 13-A of the Act and prayed for ejectment of the petitioner from the demised premises i.e. a shop, on account of personal necessity. Vide order dated 18.12.2010, petitioner was granted leave to contest the eviction petition. Being aggrieved against the said order, respondent-landlord approached this court vide Civil Revision No.979 of 2011, which was accepted vide order dated 19.02.2015 and the order granting leave to contest to the petitioner was set aside. Concededly, the order, dated 19.02.2015, passed by this court was not assailed any further and had, thus, attained finality. Subsequently, petitioner moved another application before the Rent Controller, since the consequential order of ejectment was yet to be passed, to stay further proceedings, as after the petitioner was declined leave to contest on 19.02.2015, respondent-landlord had succeeded to get another premises vacated. However, vide a detailed order dated 03.07.2015, learned Rent Controller dismissed the said application. Being aggrieved, again, petitioner approached this court vide Civil Revision No.4653 of 2015. However, the said revision petition was dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 30.07.2015, with liberty to the petitioner to move a fresh application for leave to defend, if permissible in law. As a result, petitioner moved second application seeking leave to contest the proceedings. On a due and thoughtful consideration, even the said application was dismissed by the Rent Controller on 24.08.2015. And, once again, the petitioner approached this court vide yet another Civil Revision No.5818 of 2015, assailing the order dated 24.08.2015. The said revision petition was dismissed by this court on 07.10.2015, by passing the following order:

(3.) And, for consequential order of eviction, after declining leave to contest the proceedings, was passed by the Rent Controller on 30.09.2015 (Annexure P2), again petitioner is back before this court vide the present revision. The conclusion that has been recorded by the Rent Controller in support of its order reads as thus: