IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R No. 6205 of 2011 Date of Decision:- 5.10.2011 Narinder Singh ....Petitioner vs. Harbans Lal and another ....Respondents *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR *** Present:- Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The present revision has been filed by the tenant challenging order dated 4.1.2011 whereby the Rent Controller, Bathinda, has struck off the defence of the petitioner-tenant on the ground that he had neither filed any written statement nor paid costs which was condition precedent for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings, despite the grant of three adjournments to him for the purpose. It is contended on behalf of petitioner-tenant that petitioner- tenant could not pay costs of Rs.600/- as imposed by the Court below since his wife Maninder Kaur was suffering from cancer and her condition was deteriorating day by day and later on, she died. It is contended that because of ailment of his wife, the tenant-petitioner could not attend the proceedings and comply with the directions of the Court. Thus, the situation being beyond his control, the impugned order came to be passed. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, without going into the merits of the case, I am of the view that the equity demands that the petitioner-tenant should be granted one more opportunity to file his written statement. Accordingly, the present revision is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is allowed to file his written statement; however, subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to be C.R No. 6205 of 2011 -2- paid by him to the opposite side, which shall be in addition to the costs of Rs.600/- already imposed by the Court below. Keeping in view the circumstances mentioned above, this petition is being disposed of without issuing any notice to the opposite party. If the respondents are summoned to contest this litigation, they will have to incur huge expenses to defend this case. However, liberty is granted to the respondents that if they feel dissatisfied with this order, they may move an application to recall the same. October 05, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR) JS JUDGE