SARUP CHAND JINDAL Vs. KALI CHARAN WADHWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will also dispose of Civil Revision Petition No. 1641 of 1988) as both these revision petitions arise out of the one ejectment application filed by the landlord before the Rent Controller.

(2.) THE landlord Sarup Chand having retired from service filed the ejectment application under Section 13 -A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. as amended (hereinafter called the Act), on April 12, 1986(sic) Inadvertently, therein the counsel for the Petitioner also pleaded the non payment of arrears of rent by the tenant as a ground for eviction. After the notice was served on the tenant, he moved an application seeking the leave to contest the petition. It was pleaded inter alia therein that the said petition being under Section 13 -A as well as under Section 13 of the Act, a regular procedure should be adopted and not the one envisaged under the amended Act At that stage, the learned Counsel for the landlord made the statement that he gives up the ground for the ejectment of the tenant on the basis of the non payment of arrears of rent as that ground was available under Section 13 of the Act. He further stated that he will press the ejectment application under Section 13 -A and will file a separate application on the basis of non payment of the arrears of rent. The learned Counsel for the tenant was not satisfied by this statement who maintained that the petition under Section 13 -A as such was not maintainable. This found favour with the learned Rent Controller and he held, -

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I find force in the contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner. Even if in the original application filed under Section 13 -A of the Act, the non -payment of arrears of rent was made a ground of ejectment, but since the same was given up subsequently, the learned Rent Controller should have proceeded with the petition under Section 13 -A as such adopting the procedure as contemplated under Sub -section (7) of Section 18 -A of the Act No meaningful arguments could be raised on behalf of the tenant -Respondent to sustain the impugned order of the Rent Controller.