Civil Revision No. 1349 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 1349 of 2009 Date of Decision: 4.8.2010 Kulwant Singh …Petitioner Versus Hoshiar Singh …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. V.K. Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. J.K.Bhatti, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Rawal, Advocate for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Hoshiar Singh, respondent, had instituted an eviction petition against four tenants who were occupying various parts of the property owned by him. The Rent Controller, Ludhiana, vide his order dated 21.2.2009, declined leave to contest to the petitioner/tenant. The plea raised by the petitioner/tenant that each tenancy would constitute a separate building and the entire building cannot be taken as a composite building, was declined by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, by relying upon a judgment rendered in Bhandari General Store and Another v. Makhan Singh Grewal 2006(1) Recent Civil Reports 306. It is not disputed that the Hon'ble Apex Court had declined Civil Revision No. 1349 of 2009 2 Special Leave Petition and affirmed the judgment rendered by this Court in Bhandari General Store's case (supra). In the present revision petition, a specific ground No.7 was raised that since the validity of Bhandari General Store's case (supra) is under challenge, therefore, the Rent Controller had erred in declining leave to contest. A further reliance has been placed upon an order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Dr. Amanpreet Singh v. Bhupinder Singh (Civil Revision No. 4457 of 2008, wherein a plea has been raised that the landlord cannot invoke provisions of Section 13B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as “1949 Act”), against different tenants simultaneously, as each tenancy will constitute separate tenancy and building. Now it is submitted that this matter stands concluded by affirmation of the ratio of law laid down in Bhandari General Store's case (supra). At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised another issue for consideration of this Court. It is submitted that once leave to contest is declined, the Rent Controller cannot ipso facto order eviction of the tenant. It is incumbent upon the Rent Controller, thereafter, to satisfy himself as to whether the ingredients of Section 13B of the 1949 Act, as pleaded in the eviction petition, are satisfied or not. Mr. Amit Rawal, Advocate, appearing for the respondent/landlord submits that once leave to contest has been declined, the tenant cannot join the proceedings and the necessary outcome is a mere formality as the Rent Controller is bound to order eviction of the tenant. However, Mr.Rawal has submitted that since the pendency of the eviction petition is causing delay and the rights of the Civil Revision No. 1349 of 2009 3 landlord have been put in jeopardy, he will yield to the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and give a very fair offer that let the Rent Controller satisfy himself as to whether the ingredients of Section13B of the 1949 Act are made out or not, but the same be done within a stipulated time frame. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, impugned order dated 21.2.2009, whereby leave to contest was declined, is upheld. The Rent Controller is, however, directed to decide as to whether the ingredients of Section13B of the 1949 Act are made out or not, within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. With the observations made above, the present revision petition is disposed of. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge August 4, 2010 “DK”