Civil Revision No.3753 of 2011(O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:11.07.2011 M/s Trehan Auto Parts Jalandhar Road Batala ....petitioner Versus Kuldip Singh Sahi .....respondent 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.Onkar Singh Batalvi,Advocate for the petitioner Mr.B.R.Mahajan, Advocate for the caveator-respondent **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.(ORAL): This is tenant's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 16.04.2011 passed by Rent Controller, Batala, whereby application for leave to contest filed by the petitioner-tenant has been rejected and consequently his eviction has been ordered in a petition filed under Section 13-B of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, by the respondent-landlord. The petitioner was served in the eviction petition on 18.03.2006. However, he put in appearance in the Court on 26.04.2006 and filed the application for leave to defend along with an application for condonation of delay. Vide impugned order, the application for condonation of delay has been rejected and consequently his application for leave to defend has also been declined. Admittedly, the application for leave to contest had been filed by the petitioner beyond the statuary period of Civil Revision No.3753 of 2011(O & M) 2 limitation i.e.15 days from the service of summons upon him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that while rejecting his application for condonation of delay in filing the application for leave to defend, the Court could not have dismissed the application for leave to defend on merits and ordered ejectment of the petitioner. The argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is not tenable in view of the law settled by a catena of judgments on this controversy. In fact, it is clear from the language of Section 18(A)(4) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 that in case leave to defend is not granted, nothing survives and the eviction of the tenant is to be ordered. The view of this Court is fortified by judgment dated 09.11.2010 rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in “Anwar Ali vs.Gian Kaur” passed in Civil Revision No.1493 of 2010. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 11.07.2011 neenu