IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No. 1974 of 2008 Date of Decision:- 17.9.2008. M/s. Hari Chand Bhagat Ram ... Petitioner Versus Satish Chander ... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present:- Mr. Vikas Bahl, Advocate, for the petitioner. NAWAB SINGH. J. (ORAL) Satish Chander as landlord of the demised premises filed petition under section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (for short the 'Act') for eviction of M/s. Hari Chand Bhagat Ram the tenants, revision-petitioners before this Court. The petition was being contested and remained pending for several years. The landlord then made application before the Rent Controller to withdraw the petition with permission to file a fresh eviction petition on the same cause of action. That request was accepted by order dated February 9, 2008 by Rent Controller, Nawashahar. Said order is under challenge in this revision petition. The considerations which should and actually weighed were that there was formal defect in the petition and for whatever vexation was caused, the tenant was compensated with costs Rs.3000/-. Strictly speaking, the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the 'CPC') is not applicable in so far as the Act is a Code in itself. Let this Court walk on the premises that the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 of CPC are applicable. Learned Rent Controller observed that one of the respondents namely Mohan Lal died during the pendency of eviction petition. The petitioner-tenants had filed reply to an application in which they themselves pleaded that there was inherent defect of such a nature in the petition which could not be rectified. What more was required to be considered by the Rent Controller is a question for which there is hardly any cogent Civil Revision No. 1974 of 2008 (2) answer coming forth from the tenants. The case law was cited in the correct perspective and it was rightly concluded by the Rent Controller that there was a formal defect in the eviction petition. The Rent Controller was fully justified in the circumstances to grant permission for withdrawl of the eviction petition with permission to file fresh petition on the same cause of action. It is gratifying that Rent Controller was not oblivious of the fact that application under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC was made rather, belatedly for that, the present petitioners were awarded adequate costs of Rs.3000/-. There is thus, no merit in the present revision petition and is dismissed. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 17.9.2008. SN