IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.7746 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.12.2011 Bhuvnesh Syal and others ......Petitioner(s) Versus Virender Kumar Miglani ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Mohit Jaggi, Advocate for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) This is tenants' revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 22.11.2011 of the Rent Controller, Dera Bassi whereby in a petition filed under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent, Restriction Act, 1949, the prayer for grant of leave to defend has been rejected and consequentially the eviction of the petitioner has been ordered. The only grievance raised before this Court on behalf of the petitioners is that the Rent Controller has allowed the petition filed by the respondent, without there being any evidence on record. According to the petitioners, the Rent Controller has believed the contents of the petition as these are, without calling upon the respondent to prove his case as per law and thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. According to the learned counsel even if the leave to defend was not granted, the respondent was liable to prove his case by leading evidence. In support of his case, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of M.R.F Limited and another versus S.Major Singh Purewal 2009(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 624. It is useful to refer to the provisions of Section 18-A which reads as follows: “18-A. Special procedure for disposal of applications under section 13-A or section 13-B,- (1) to (3) xxx xxxx xxx (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 as 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 would show that once leave to defend is refused to the tenant the averments made in the ejectment application by the respondent-landlord are deemed to be admitted by the tenant and the landlord is entitled to possession of the demised premises. A Full Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 9.11.2010 passed in CR No.1493 of 2010 titled as “Anwar Ali versus Gian Kaur” after noticing the provisions of Section 18-A which provides the procedure to be adopted in a petition filed under Section 13-A or Section 13-B has held that in a situation where leave is refused to the tenant to defend the proceedings, eviction of the tenant has to be ordered as an automatic consequence. The relevant para reads thus: “The order dated 19.01.2009 in Kamal Raj Bansal (supra), in our considered view, does not erode the efficacy of the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in Baldev Singh Bajwa's case (supra) inasmuch as neither the decision in Baldev Singh Bajwa (supra) has been referred to in the said order nor the detailed reason for the conclusion reached is available in the order of the Court. Insofar as the decision in Modula India's case (supra) is concerned, the Apex Court in the said case was dealing with the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, which did not contain provisions pari materia with Section 13-B and 18-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. Moreover, in Modula India (supra), the Apex Court was dealing with a situation where the defence of the defendant-tenant was struck off. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the decision in Modula India's case (supra) does not detract from the principles of law laid down in Baldev Singh Bajwa's case (supra). The above discussion would lead us to the conclusion that in a situation where under Section 13-B of the Act, leave is refused to the tenant to defend the proceedings brought by the N.R.I landlord, eviction of the tenant has to be ordered as an automatic consequence. Having answered the question referred in the manner indicated above, we remit the matter to the learned Single Judge for a decision on merits.” Thus, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is misconceived and there is no merit in the instant revision petition. Dismissed. December 14, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE