Civil Revision No. 2494 of 2010 1 **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Civil Revision No. 3494 of 2010 Date of decision : 27.5.2010 Rachpal Singh ....Petitioner Versus Gurmeet Kaur ...Respondent 2. Civil Revision No. 3495 of 2010 Pal Singh ....Petitioner Versus Gurmeet Kaur ...Respondent 3. Civil Revision No. 3496 of 2010 Shashi Kanda ....Petitioner Versus Gurmeet Kaur ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Ashwani Prashar, Advocate with Mr. Hiten Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate with Mr. Hittan Nehra, Advocate for the respondent S. D. ANAND, J. Civil Revision No. 2494 of 2010 2 **** Facts are as under:- The respondent-landlady Gurmeet Kaur had filed a petition for ejectment of the petitioner-tenant from the tenanted premises on the authority of provisions of Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The petitioner-tenant applied for the leave to defend which came to be granted. That order was challenged by the respondent- landlady by filing Civil Revision No.4096 of 2007 ( Annexure P/1). In the course of the impugned order, A Coordinate Bench of this Court noticed that the learned Rent Controller had taken a different view in three matters of similar character. On that short ground itself, it was found that the orders could not be sustained. The matter was remanded to the learned Rent Controller to reconsider the issue and grant an order afresh. That order was challenged by the petitioner- landlady before the Apex Court which negatived the challenge. Thereafter, the learned Rent Controller reexamined the matter and declined the plea for leave to defend, vide order dated 26.10.2009. That, too, was challenged by the petitioner-tenant by filing Civil Revision No.275 of 2010 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 10.1.2010 on ascertainment of the fact that the main petition under Section 13-B of the Act had come to be granted in the meantime. Thereafter, the petitioner-tenant filed revision petition No.939 of 2010 challenging the negativing of the plea to defend and also the ejectment order granted in the main petition. That petition was allowed by this Court on 15.2.2010 by observing that the grant of Civil Revision No. 2494 of 2010 3 **** ejectment order without examining the landlady was not in accord with the law laid down by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in M.R.F.Limited and another Vs. S. Major Singh Purewal 2009(1) RCR 624. It was thereafter that the learned Rent Controller allowed the ejectment petition in favour of the respondent-landlady and against the petitioner. The petitioner-tenant applied to the learned Rent Controller for framing of issues in the context of the leave to defend. The plea raised was that the disposal afresh of the plea regarding the leave to defend was authorised by the order dated 15.2.2010 of this Court. The plea was negatived by the learned Rent Controller by observing that there was no necessity to frame issues because the plea for leave to defend had already been dismissed by the learned Rent Controller and the finding stood affirmed with the withdrawal of Civil Revision No.275 of 2010 whereby the validity of that order had been challenged. The solitary contention vehemently urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the view obtained by the learned Rent Controller is legally inappropriate inasmuch as the order dated 15.2.2010 nowhere announced that the plea for leave to defend was not to be decided and afresh as it had attained finality that the withdrawal of Civil Revision No.275 of 2010. The plea deserves outright disallowance. The reasons therefor are as under:- Civil Revision No. 2494 of 2010 4 **** The petitioner-tenant had filed Civil Revision No.275 of 2010 to obtain invalidation of the order granted by the learned Rent Controller negativing the plea raised by the petitioner-tenant for leave to defend. That challenge was dismissed as withdrawn as the main petition itself came to be allowed in the meantime. Thus, with withdrawal of that Civil Revision, the order granted by the learned Rent Controller, declining leave to defend had attained finality. That order could not be subject of challenge in Civil Revision No.941 of 2010 which, too, came to be allowed and the matter remanded to the learned Rent Controller in terms of law laid down by a learned Single Bench of this Court in M.R.F.'s case (supra). No such inference can be drawn therefrom that the challenge to the negativing of the plea qua leave to defend had been revived in any manner. There is no warrant for the advocated proposition aforementioned. In view, thus, of the fact that the order declining the leave to defend had attained finality with the withdrawal of Civil Revision No.275 of 2010, there was no justification for the petitioner-tenant to apply to learned Rent Controller for framing of issues in the context. The petitions shall stand dismissed accordingly. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of each connected case. May 27, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE