IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1638 of 2010 Date of decision: 13th August, 2010 Gurdev Chand … Petitioner Versus Iqbal Kaur and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Mansur Ali, Advocate with Mr. Bhupinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate for the respondents. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) In the present revision petition, petitioner-tenant has assailed the order dated 5th February, 2010 passed by the Rent Controller, Garhshankar, whereby leave to contest was declined in the eviction petition filed under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’) by the Non Resident Indian-landlord. In the petition for leave to contest, one of the issues raised by the tenant was that the property in question is partly out of the Municipal limits, therefore, the provisions of the Act cannot be invoked. Therefore, a prayer was made that an opportunity be granted to the tenant to lead evidence to prove this fact that the property in question will not fall within the purview of the Act. The application was declined on two grounds by the Rent Controller. Firstly, that the tenant had not placed on record any evidence Civil Revision No.1638 of 2010 from the revenue authorities to state that the building in question is not part of Khasra No.34/1/8 and 10/1/1. The Rent Controller came to the conclusion that as per the common practice, Khasra number and Rectangle are considered one and the same for the purpose of notification. Secondly, the Rent Controller held that on the property in question, the house tax was being paid, therefore, the same is within the Municipal limits. Mr.Sunil Chadha, Advocate appearing for the respondents- landlord, has placed on record a certificate issued by the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Mahilpur in favour of one Satish Kumar, Advocate of Garhshankar to state that the property in question falls within the Municipal limits. If that is so, the official of the Municipal Council is required to be cross-examined. Furthermore, it is a question of fact as to whether the property is within the limits of Municipal Council or not. Therefore, the parties necessarily have to lead their evidence to prove or disprove this fact. Thus, there is a triable issue whether the property falls within the Municipal limits or not, and is amenable to the Act or not. Hence, the order passed by the Rent Controller is set aside and the application seeking leave to contest is allowed. The Rent Controller is directed to decide the eviction petition within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. With the observations made above, present revision petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE August 13, 2010 rps 2