Civil Revision No.4695 of 2010(O & M) 1 and Civil Revision No.3046 of 2011(O & M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4695 of 2010(O & M) Date of Decision:20.07.2011 Harish Kumar ....petitioner Versus Pritam Kaur & ors. .....respondents Civil Revision No.3046 of 2011(O & M) Date of Decision:20.07.2011 Harish Kumar ....petitioner Versus Pritam Kaur & ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Vikas Bahl,Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Sarju Puri, Advocate for the respondents **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.(ORAL): These two revision petitions have been filed by the tenant/petitioner against the order dated 20th February, 2010, whereby his application for leave to contest the petition filed under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 19499(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was rejected on the ground that the same was filed after a lapse Civil Revision No.4695 of 2010(O & M) 2 and Civil Revision No.3046 of 2011(O & M) of statutory period and final order dated 20th July, 2010 ordering his eviction from the premises in dispute. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that in this case the respondent-landlord who claimed himself to be NRI and had sought eviction for his personal necessity had died in April 2004 and therefore the present petition under Section 13-B of the Act was not maintainable at all and thus the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. Certain facts need to be noticed at this stage. The eviction application under Section 13-B of the Act was filed by Harbhajan Singh (predecessor-in-interest of respondents) on 24th September, 2001 claiming himself to be owner of the demised premises and NRI. In response to the notice issued, petitioner appeared on 12th December, 2001 and filed an application seeking leave to contest. The said application remained pending before the Court and in April 2004. Respondent Harbhajan Singh died and even his LRs i.e.present respondents were brought on record vide order dated 12.05.2004. Even, at that stage, petitioner has not taken any objection regarding the maintainability of the petition filed under Section 13-B of the Act as argued now. Not only this, leave to appeal was also granted to him on 08.09.2008 and at that time also he raised no such objection. Thereafter he filed written statement on 19.09.2008. Though, an objection was taken in the written statement to the extent that LRs of Harbhajan Singh do not qualify as NRI landlords and therefore the petition had become infructuous and deserves dismissal, however. No such issue was framed. Nor any such objection was taken at the time of framing of issues, which were framed on 22.09. 2008 or thereafter. However, in the meantime, respondents preferred Civil Civil Revision No.4695 of 2010(O & M) 3 and Civil Revision No.3046 of 2011(O & M) Revision No.543 of 2009 challenging the order dated 08.09.2008 granting leave to appeal to the petitioner. The said revision petition was allowed on 07.12.2009 by this Court and the aforesaid order dated 08.09.2008 was set aside further directing the Rent Controller to pass fresh order on the application for leave to appeal. Even at that stage, no such objection regarding the maintainability of the petition on behalf of the respondents was taken. The Rent Controller passed fresh order dated 20th February 2010, which is impugned in Civil Revision No. 4695 of 2010 whereby application for leave to appeal was dismissed on the ground that the same has been filed after the statutory period of limitation. A perusal of the aforesaid order would show that the petitioner has never raised any objection regarding the maintainability of the present petition under Section 13-B of the Act and thereafter at the time of passing of the impugned order of eviction against him. From the narration of facts, it is clear that despite the fact that petitioner knew since 2004 that Harbhajan Singh, who claimed himself as NRI had died and according to him the present respondents being his LRs were not competent to file the objection, still no objection was raised by the petitioner regarding the maintainability of the petitioner except taking an objection in the written statement. This court is of the view that the petitioner has not taken this objection, at the earliest stage and now he is estopped from raising such an objection and the same amounts to waiver. This Court is of the view that the petitioner cannot take this objection of plea, at this stage. The petitioner is continuing with the proceedings since 2004 without raising the objection of maintainability and has allowed the judicial process to continue for such a long time and now when ejectment order has been passed against him, finding no other ground to challenge Civil Revision No.4695 of 2010(O & M) 4 and Civil Revision No.3046 of 2011(O & M) the same, has raised the objection of maintainability. Since, leave to appeal has been denied being time barred, the impugned order of his eviction cannot be found faulted with. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 20.07.2011 neenu