JASNEET INDER KAUR Vs. BIMLA PAITKA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge has been made to order dated 06.01.2017 passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh (Annexure P-1) through which an application filed by the petitioner under Order 8 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the Code') was dismissed. Order dated 10.07.2017 (Annexure P-2) through which the petitioner's application seeking review of the aforesaid order dated 06.01.2017 was dismissed, is also impugned.

(2.) The petitioner had filed an ejectment petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act') seeking therein the ejectment of the respondents on the grounds mentioned therein. In pursuance to the notice issued in such petition, the respondents had appeared before the Rent Controller, Chandigarh but since they did not file their written statement within 90 days, an application under Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code was preferred by the petitioner seeking to strike off the respondents' defence which through the impugned order was dismissed. The petitioner then sought a review of the aforesaid order which was also dismissed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it could not be disputed that after the respondents had put in appearance before the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, they did not file their written statement within 90 days and for not doing so, no reasonable explanation has been offered by them. Thus, as per the mandate of law, the petitioner's application filed under Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code should have been accepted by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, resulting in the striking off of the respondents' defence.