Civil Revision No.6676 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6676 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision:20.03.2009 M/s Indian Potash Ltd. and others .............Petitioners Vs. Sohan Singh and others ............Respondents Present: Mr. Narender Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K.KANNAN, J. 1. The order in revision is one allowing the petitioner to withdraw the rent control petition reserving the right to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action by impleading all the necessary parties. The petition was sought to be withdrawn on the objection taken by the tenant that all the parties had not been impleaded and the suit as framed was not maintainable. 2. The respondent-tenant is the revision petitioner before this Court. He refers to the decision of this Court in Ram Dass Vs. Sukhdev Kaur and Ors. 1981 (2) RCR 23, which has held that the Appellate Authority has no power to allow a party to withdraw the ejectment petition with permission to file a fresh application. The Court had reasoned that the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 are not Civil Revision No.6676 of 2008 (O&M) -2- necessarily Civil Courts and provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 (3) do not govern the proceedings at the Rent Act except to the limited extent provided under Sections 16 and 17 of the Rent Control Act. The said decision, in my view, does not really answer the issue that governs the case, since even the Bench had observed that the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority were entitled to devise their own procedure within the limits prescribed under the Act itself. The Bench had also observed that if any other relief within the ambit the procedure, which could be lawfully devised by the rent authority, it could be made available to the respondent and the Bench itself had directed a fresh decision to be taken de hors the provisions under Order 23 Rule 1 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The permission to withdraw the petition was made on the basis of objection taken by the tenant regarding the frame of the petition and non-impleadment of persons who were necessary parties. Even if a withdrawal is not permitted, the tenant who had contended that the petition framed was not maintainable was estopped from contending that the landlord was bound to prosecute the same case and meet with failure. The order of withdrawal, if it is impermissible as per the decision of the Division Bench, I direct that the same order shall be treated as a dismissal otherwise than on merits with liberty to file a petition by impleading all the necessary parties on grounds permissible by law. Since the dismissal is not rendered on merits and not under any of the circumstances that could attract the bar of fresh adjudication on the ground of res judicata, I modify the order passed by the Rent Controller as having been passed dismissing the petition, which shall Civil Revision No.6676 of 2008 (O&M) -3- not bar the institution of a fresh petition, which is in conformity with law. The civil revision petition is, therefore, dismissed with the above modifications. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 20, 2009 Pankaj*