PARAMJIT KAUR Vs. GURCHARAN SINGH WALIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 31.5.2005 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Tarn Taran dismissing the application moved by the petitioner for leave to defend and thereby allowing petition filed under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, as amended in the year 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and order of ejectment has been passed against the tenant- petitioner.

(2.) THE respondent-landlord filed a petition under Section 13-B of the Act seeking immediate possession of the shop situated opposite to Civil Hospital Tarn Taran. The petitioner claimed that he is Non Resident Indian (NRI) as defined under Section 2(dd) of the Act and therefore, was entitled to immediate possession of the demised shop under the provisions of Section 13-B of the Act. It was claimed that he was born in India and thereafter, shifted to United States of America (in short USA) and he has now returned to India. It was claimed by him that the permanent resident card and social security card have been issued in his favour by the USA. He claimed that he was exclusive owner of the demised shop on the basis of sale-deed dated 25.5.1963 and on the basis of family settlement dated 3.12.1985 which was part of the building situated in the area of Amritsar Road opposite Civil Hospital, Tarn Taran. Thus it was claimed that he was exclusive owner of the building including the demised premises for the last more than five years.

(3.) ON presentation of petition, the learned Rent Controller by way of order dated 29.9.2004 was pleased to order issuance of notice to the petitioner- tenant in prescribed proforma for 27.10.2004. However, in spite of this order, summons were not issued in the proforma prescribed under Schedule II but by way of ordinary process. It was on account of this that when the respondent- tenant appeared, time was sought for filing reply and the case was adjourned to 17.11.2004. Even on 17.11.2004, written statement was not filed and application under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC for production of original passport of landlord was filed. The case was accordingly adjourned to 30.11.2004. On 30.11.2004, original documents were shown to the counsel for the respondent- landlord and a direction was issued to furnish the copies of the same to the counsel for the tenant-petitioner and it was ordered that reply to the main petition was to be filed on 17.12.2004. Again on 17.12.2004, reply to the main petition was not filed and the case was adjourned to 14.1.2005 subject to payment of Rs. 70/- as costs. It was on 14.1.2005 that written reply was filed and costs were paid. The case was adjourned for filing rejoinder, reconciliation and statements of parties before framing of issues. Again on 18.2.2005, rejoinder was not filed, rather application was moved under Section 18-A of the Act for seeking order of ejectment. The case was adjourned for filing of reply to the said application. However, it was only on 18.3.2005 that the reply to the application moved under Section 18-A was filed along with affidavit seeking leave to defend. After obtaining reply to the said application, the learned Rent Controller dismissed the application for leave to defend and ordered eviction of the petitioner-tenant.