MONJIT KAUR Vs. FAQIR CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-landlady challenges the order dated 24.02.2015 (Annexure P-5), whereby leave to contest under Section 18-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been granted for the second time on untenable reasons, in spite of an earlier order having been passed in favour of the petitioner-landlady in Civil Revision No.6417 of 2013 on 03.12.2014 (Annexure P-4) inter se the parties.

(2.) Specific principles had been laid down by this Court as to what is the jurisdiction under Section 13-B of the Rent Controller at the time of granting leave to contest, in view of the settled law in 'Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini', 2005 (4) RCR (Civil) 492 . The order impugned, however, does not show that the Rent Controller has applied its mind to the binding precedent of this Court, inter se the parties on an earlier occasion and blindly granted leave to contest on totally untenable grounds being biased by the fact that some other family member owned commercial property in the town of Bathinda.

(3.) The distinction between under Section 13 (3) and 13-B, seems to have been blurred in the mind of the Rent Controller while deciding the application for leave to contest. The said leave to contest had been granted solely being blinded by the fact that on an earlier occasion her Predecessor-in-Interest had granted leave to contest. Therefore, since issues had already been framed earlier the case has unnecessarily been put to trial, without taking into the account the fact that the Apex Court in 'Kamaljit Singh v. Sarabjit Singh' 2014 (4) PLR 828 has also held that Section 13-B of the Act is a piece of beneficial legislation for providing speedy remedy to the NRI landlord by way of providing summary eviction.