CR No.2025 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.2025 of 2010 Date of Decision: 18 - 8 - 2010 Inderjit Singh ....Petitioner v. Surinder Kumar Saini and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Ms.Mamta Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Arvind Galay, Advocate for Mr.Dinesh Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr.B.P.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) In the present revision petition, counsel for the petitioner has prayed that impugned order dated 2.3.2010, Annexure P3, passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh be set aside, as no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to order dated 14.5.2009, Annexure P2, passed by the Rent Controller wherein Shri J.C.Batra, Advocate has filed the power of attorney on behalf of the CR No.2025 of 2010 [2] petitioner and the case was adjourned to 27.7.2009 for consideration on an application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as, `CPC'). It is further stated that on 17.9.2009, an application for assessing the arrears of rent was filed and the case was adjourned to 22.10.2009 for filing reply to that application. The said reply, as stated was filed on 22.10.2009 and the case was adjourned to 7.12.2009 for consideration. A two-fold grievance has been projected by counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order whereby application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was decided, records the presence of Shri N.K.Nanda, counsel for the petitioner, who was superseded by Shri J.C.Batra, Advocate. It is further stated that on that date only provisional rent was to be determined, therefore, application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC could not be decided. Counsel for the respondents could not justify the presence of Shri N.K.Nanda, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner. Be that as it may, this Court is of the view that since Shri N.K.Nanda, Advocate was replaced by Shri J.C.Batra, Advocate, a meaningful opportunity of hearing had not been afforded to the petitioner to urge that the impugned order could not be passed. The effective meaningful hearing means that the argument should have been addressed by the counsel, in whom the petitioner had reposed faith. Consequently, impugned order, Annexure P3, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Rent Controller to decide the application afresh within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, after hearing counsel for the parties. He is further directed to decide the provisional rent in consonance with the observations made by this Court in Civil Revision No.4459 of CR No.2025 of 2010 [3] 2009, titled as, `Inderjit Singh v. Surinder Kumar Saini' decided on 10.8.2009. In view of the above, the present revision petition is disposed of. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) August 18, 2010. JUDGE RC