IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6529 of 2008 Date of decision:21.03.2009 Rajinder Singh Kakar ...Petitioner versus Harpreet Brar and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. Counsel for the petitioner is present and there is no representation on behalf of the respondents. The petition for ejectment filed under Section 13-A by the landlord claiming to be a “specified landlord” under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 was resisted by the tenant and he sought for leave to defend which leave was granted. The revision is granted against the said order. 2. `The certificate as required under the Act was not produced along with the petition, but it was filed only with the reply. The document which was filed along with the reply was a certificate from the Secretary of P.S.E.B., Patiala that he had been employed in the Electricity Board and he was due for retirement on 31st August, 2008, that is within a period of one year from the date of petition. The Civil Revision No.6529 of 2008 - 2 - dismissal of the petition that since the document had not been filed along with the petition and that it was filed only with reply is in my view untenable. The grant of leave to the tenant on such flimsy ground of defence, when the Act that stipulates a fast track and a different procedure of how without leave, the petition itself would not be allowed to be contested. The defence was a moonshine as it were, and the grant of leave was erroneous. 3. The revision is allowed and the order of the Rent Controller is set aside. The landlord is entitled to a summary order of ejectment. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 21.03.2009 sanjeev