B.D. THAPPER Vs. PAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller, Amritsar, dated October 4, 1986, passed on an application under section 13-A of he East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, (hereinafter called the Act).

(2.) PAL Singh, respondent, filed the ejectment application under section 13-A of the Act, claiming himself to be a specified landlord, as defined under section 2(hh) of the Act. According to him, he retired from the Central Government Ordinance Deport, Delhi Cantt. on June 4, 1973, as a Subedar. He continued to be a Govt. of India employee till his retirement. The tenant was inducted on the demised premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 450/-. He filed the present eviction application within one year of the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1985. It was pleaded that he required the premises for the personal bonafide necessity as he wanted to shift from Delhi to Amritsar. Summons were issued to the tenant in the form specified in schedule II. In the summons, it was clearly stated.- "Now therefore, you are hereby summoned to appear before the Controller within fifteen days of the service of thereof and to obtain the leave of the Controller to contest the application..........." On the top of the summons, the Peshi date was given as August 14, 1986. Though the summons were issued on July 3, 1986, and duly served, but admittedly the tenant did not file any application within fifteen days thereof. However, on August 14, 1986, he moved the application seeking permission of the Controller to defend the ejectment application. Along with the said application, he also moved another application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay in filing the application for leave to contest the ejectment application. According to the tenant, he was under the impression that he was to appear before the Rent Controller on August 14, 1986, the date fixed and, therefore, he did not move the application within fifteen days, as given in the summons. Thus, the delay on his part was not intentional. However, the only ground given in the application for leave to contest the ejectment application was :

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this revision petition.