KALA Vs. DHARAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 28.04.2011, passed by the Rent Controller, Jalandhar, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for leave to defend has been dismissed.

(2.) It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Rent Controller, Jalandhar, while passing the order dated 28.04.2011, has not taken into consideration the specific plea which has been taken by the petitioner in the application for leave to defend that the respondent-landlord was the owner in possession of 8/9 shops in the same vicinity, out of which 6/7 shops are lying vacant which can be utilised by the respondent for starting his own business. He contends that in the reply, which has been filed to the application for leave to defend, there is no specific denial of the fact with regard to the ownership of the shops and some of the shops being vacant. He, on this basis, contends that this would be a good ground for granting leave to defend, as a triable issue is made out.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, asserts that the respondent in his reply to the application for leave to defend has denied the contents of sub-para (f) of the application as wrong. It has further been stated that the shop in question is more suitable to the petitioner to run his business and, therefore, he has filed an application for eviction. He contends that there is nothing on record which would indicate that the petitioner is the owner of 8/9 shops and, therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted.