IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.3548 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.9.2011 Vishva Shrava Talwar -----Petitioner Vs. Sh. Davinder Singh Aulakh -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present:- Mr. Bhan Singh Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Naveen Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Pipat, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate for the respondent. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. This is tenant’s revision petition challenging the impugned order of the Rent Controller declining leave to defend in a petition filed under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, as extended to Chandigarh. On 27.5.2011, following order was passed by this Court:- “Present: Mr. Bhal Singh Mali, Advocate with Mr. Naveen Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner. This revision is filed by the tenant against the order of the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, dated 13.4.2011, by which an application filed by him under Section 18-A(4) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, ‘the Act’) for leave to defend the petition C.R. No.3548 of 2011 filed by the landlord under Section 13-B of the Act, has been declined. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by way of writ petition, namely CWP No.4761 of 2011 titled as Vishva Shrava Talwar Malik Vs. Union of India and others, notification dated 09.10.2009 by which in terms of Section 87 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 (31 of 1966), the Central Government had extended the provision of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, as amended by the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 2001 (Punjab Act No.9 of 2001) to the U.T. Chandigarh by which Section 13-B has been added in the said Statute to operate in the Urban Area of Chandigarh, has been challenged on the ground that it is ultravires to the Constitution because in terms of Section 89 of the Punjab Organization Act, 1966, any Central Act could be adopted not before the expiry of two years of the appointed date i.e. 1.6.1966 which has already expired and in case, the provisions of Section 13-B are to be extended, it could only be by way of an Act of Parliament and not by the Act of Government. He submits that notice of motion has already been issued in the said writ petition for 31.5.2011. The sum and substance of his argument is that once an issue of application of Section 13-B is sub-judice before this Court by way of writ petition, application for eviction filed by the landlord under the said section may not be allowed to proceed. Notice of motion for 11.7.2011. Till then, dispossession of the petitioner shall remain stayed. 27.5.2011 Rakesh Kumar Jain Judge” Shri Malik, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner could not dispute the fact that the question raised in this petition is covered by Division Bench judgment of this Court in C.W.P.No.15378 of 2011(Asha Chawla and others v. Union of India and others). No other point is urged. 2 C.R. No.3548 of 2011 In this view of the matter, this petition is dismissed. September 30, 2011 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ak JUDGE 3