SUKHDEV KHANNA, ADVOCATE Vs. BALBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller, Chandigarh passed under section 18-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act as amended by the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Chandigarh Amendment) Ordinance, 1976, allowing the application of Shri Balbir Singh landlord for the recovery of possession from Shri Sukhdev Khanna. In reply to notice of motion issued by this Court, the respondent has vehemently opposed this petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that he was served with the requisite notice on 19th January, 1977, and not on 17th January, 1977. Therefore, his appearance before the Rent Controller on 2nd February, 1977, was within the prescribed period of 15 days. On the other hand it is pointed out that the petitioner wrote with his own hand on the summons :-

(3.) The Rent Controller declined to grant permission to the petitioner to contest the application for his objection, for the reason that the petitioner did not file any affidavit in support of his claim to contest the application. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the written statement of the petitioner on record which bears the attestation of an Oath Commissioner. Learned counsel for the respondent referred me to the rules contained in Chapter 12-3 of the Rules and Orders of the High Court, Volume IV, laying down the form and the contents thereof, the written statement of the petitioner does not at all satisfy the requirement of the rules. Hence it cannot be called an affidavit. Besides, learned counsel for the respondent urged that the perusal of the summons served on the petitioner clearly indicated that the petitioner had to file an application supported by an affidavit for permission to contest the eviction proceedings against him. What is on record is nothing but the written statement above said. I accordingly find that no case has been made out to interfere with the impugned order.