IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1778 of 2007 Date of decision: 25th November, 2008 Ashok Kumar … Petitioner Versus Amrik Kaur … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Sarju Puri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Malkeet Singh, Advocate for the respondent. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) This is a case, where leave to defend has been declined in a mechanical manner by the Rent Controller. In the head note of the eviction petition instituted by the landlady, Amrik Kaur, it has been stated that ejectment of the tenant is sought from the shop in dispute, shown in red colour in the site plan. In para 3 of the eviction petition, it has been stated by the landlady that 15 years ago the father of the tenant took the shop on rent from the petitioner @ Rs.500/- per month for one day less of a year. Application for leave to defend was filed vide Annexure P-2. In para 3 Ground No. (viii), it was stated that the tenant had taken two shops on rent from Piara Singh, father of the landlady @ Rs.90/- per month for each shop and the rent for two shops is Rs.180/- per month. Question to be answered was whether eviction has been sought from one shop or two shops? Civil Revision No. 1778 of 2007 To controvert, Mr. Malkeet Singh has stated that it was a mere typographical error. However, there is no discussion by the Rent Controller, whether the same was a typographical error or not. Entire pleadings state, tenant is to be evicted from the shop. I have seen the site plan attached with the plaint. It shows two separate shops. Each shop has dimension of 14 feet x 12 feet. This argument was not considered by the Rent Controller rather in para 4 of the impugned order, it has been stated that the boundary of the site plan tally with the sale deed produced on record by the landlady. In the concluding portion of para 4, Rent Controller found the applicant has alleged himself to be tenant in two shops. It further noticed that “it has been confirmed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge and the possession of the applicant on two shops was considered”. Having noticed so, it was incumbent to consider whether tenant is to be evicted from a shop or two shops? To fortify argument, counsel for the petitioner has referred to Annexure P-3, the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Nawanshahar in an appeal under Order 39 Rule 2 CPC. Furthermore, in an application for leave to defend, it was stated that the landlady had rented other property at Banga to different tenants recently. This fact could only be proved by the tenant after leading the evidence. Tenant has made averments and for applying the test of prima facie in the interest of fair play, adequate opportunity ought to have been given to the tenant to lead evidence. Therefore, in the interest of justice, fair play and to balance the equities, impugned order is set aside and leave to defend is granted to the tenant. Since in the present case, proceedings are pending since 2003 and the beneficial provisions enacted in favour of the NRIs also demand that matter should be resolved at the earliest, therefore, direction is given to the 2 Civil Revision No. 1778 of 2007 Rent Controller to decide the ejectment proceedings within six months. Both parties shall be afforded three opportunities to conclude their evidence. With these observations, present revision petition is disposed off. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE November 25, 2008 rps 3