(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed challenging orders dated 4.9.2004 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner-tenant for leave to defend an application filed under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred as, 'the Act') as also order passed on the application under Section 13-A of the Act ordering ejectment of the petitioner-tenant.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the landlord, respondent in this revision petition, filed an application under Section 13-A of the Act seeking ejectment of the petitioner-tenant from the demised premises on 18.3.2002. Notice of the said application was issued for 2.5.2002. According to the report submitted regarding service on 10.4.2002 service was effected by affixation on that date. However, the Rent Controller ordered fresh service for 1.6.2002. According to the report submitted to the Rent Controller, the petitioner-tenant refused to accept service on 21.5.2002. Thereafter the Rent Controller directed service by munadi and fixed the date of hearing as 9.8.2002. Munadi was effected on 4.7.2002. An application for leave to defend was filed on 9.8.2002 by the petitioner-tenant which was allowed by the Rent Controller on 29.4.2003. Leave to defend was granted by the Rent Controller by observing that the objection with regard to maintainability of the application for leave to defend and the objection with regard to limitation would be decided afterwards. Against this order, the landlord filed Civil Revision No. 2565 of 2003 in this Court. The revision petition was allowed. Order of the Rent Controller dated 29.4.2003 was set aside and the Rent Controller was directed to decide the application for leave to defend afresh.
(3.) AFTER going through the reports and the zimni orders made by the Rent Controller, I am of the opinion that Harbans Singh tenant stood served on 21.5.2002 when he kept a copy of the summons and refused to give receipt. In any case he was again served by munadi on 4.7.2002.