IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.3924 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 8.7.2011 Prabhjit Singh and others ......Petitioner(s) Versus Sukhjit Singh ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Ajit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral) This is tenants' revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 3.5.2011 passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh rejecting the application for grant of leave to contest the petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short “the Act”) on the ground of delay of 3 days. Admittedly, the application for leave to contest was filed by the petitioner-tenants after the prescribed period of 15 days as prescribed under Schedule II of the Act. Further it has been authoritatively settled that the Rent Controller has no authority to condone the delay in filing the application for leave to contest. Thus, grievance raised by the petitioner- tenant is unsustainable. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has further argued that, in any case, after declining the leave to contest, it was still imperative for the landlord to prove his case and the eviction could not have been ordered automatically in a mechanical way. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is without any merit. It is useful to refer to Section 18-A (4) of the Act which reads as follows:- CR No.3924 of 2011(O&M) -2- “(4) The tenant on whom the service of summons has been declared to have been validly made under sub- section (3), shall have no right to contest the prayer for eviction from the [residential building or scheduled building and/or non-residential building], as the case may be, unless he files an affidavit stating the grounds on which he seeks to contest the application for eviction and obtains leave from the Controller as hereinafter provided, and in default of his appearance in pursuance of the summons or his obtaining such leave, the statement made by the specified landlord or, as the case may be, the widow, widower, child, grandchild or the widowed daughter-in-law of such specified landlord [or the owner, who is a non-resident Indian] in the application for eviction shall be deemed to be admitted by the tenant and the applicant shall be entitled to an order for eviction of the tenant.” A perusal of the aforesaid provision clearly provides that in case of non grant of leave to contest, the landlord is entitled to an order of eviction of the tenant and the statement made by the landlord in the application for eviction is deemed to be admitted by the tenant. Dismissed. July 8, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE