Civil Revision No. 2417 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 2417 of 2009 Date of Decision: 17.8.2010 Suman Bala …Petitioner Versus Sanjay Vohra and Another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Sandeep Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Narender Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The respondent/landlord has filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. During the pendency thereof, wife of the tenant has filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC stating therein that her husband Narinder Kumar had been missing for the last ten years, therefore, she be permitted to defend the eviction petition. The Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur, took a very hyper technical view and stated that since the Civil Court has not passed a decree that husband of the applicant was unheard for the last ten years, therefore, the application for her impleadment as a respondent to the eviction Civil Revision No. 2417 of 2009 2 petition cannot be allowed. Learned counsel for the respondent/landlord submits that he is interested in contesting the eviction petition on merits and will have no objection in case the wife of tenant is permitted to defend the eviction petition. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the present revision petition is accepted and the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, filed by the wife of the tenant, is allowed. She is ordered to be impleaded as a respondent to the eviction petition. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge August 17, 2010 “DK”