Civil Revision No. 6856 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 6856 of 2009 Date of Decision: 3.8.2010 Davinder Singh Walia …Petitioner Versus Smt.Bhajanjit Kaur and Another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. K.S. Rekhi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.M.K. Dogra, Advocate for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/tenant against impugned order dated 16.9.2009, passed by the Rent Controller, Amritsar, vide which a prayer, made by the petitioner, to grant leave to defend, was declined. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it has been admitted by the respondent/landlady that she is having another premises in the city. Therefore, the petitioner had controverted the averment made by her in the ejectment petition that she has neither vacated any such premises earlier without any sufficient cause nor has any such accommodation, in the urban area, which may be sufficient for meeting her needs. Civil Revision No. 6856 of 2009 2 Mr. Dogra, appearing for the respondent/landlady submits that even though the respondent/landlady is in possession of another building but no kitchen and attached toilet are available with the same, therefore, it is not appropriate for her residence. This assertion of Mr.Dogra is again disputed by Mr. Rekhi by submitting that the other property is of the area of 125 square yards, whereas the demised premises is of 70 square yards. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon an affidavit of the counsel in the trial Court, wherein it is stated that the Rent Controller has wrongly stated that he had seen the photocopy of the sale deed dated 9.10.1986. He further submitted that no such photocopy of the sale deed is on the record of the case. Mr. Dogra was asked to provide a photocopy of the sale deed dated 9.10.1986 to learned counsel for the petitioner, at this juncture also. But he expressed his inability to do so, as the same is not available in the record, at this stage. In view of these facts, Mr. Dogra has very fairly submitted that in case, leave to defend is granted to the petitioner/tenant, then this Court may direct the Rent Controller, Amritsar, to decide the eviction petition, on merits, within a stipulated period by affording three equal effective opportunities to both the parties. Mr. Rekhi has no objection thereto. In view of the broad consensus arrived at between the parties, the impugned order is set aside and leave to defend the eviction petition is granted in favour of the petitioner/tenant. The Rent Controller, Amritsar, is directed to decide the eviction petition as expeditiously as Civil Revision No. 6856 of 2009 3 possible, preferably within a period of six months by affording three effective opportunities to both the parties to lead their evidence. With the observations made above, the present revision petition is disposed of. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge August 3, 2010 “DK”