IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3893 of 2007 Date of decision: December 17, 2010. Avtar Singh Gore & Ors. ...Petitioner(s) v. Mohinder Singh & Anr. ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri Puneet Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). None for the respondents. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. (Oral): The petitioners filed an ejectment petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 against the tenant- respondent. On the notice issued, tenant appeared and made an application for grant of leave to contest. The Rent Controller granted leave to contest. Thereafter, issues were framed; parties led their evidence and the eviction petition was dismissed. Present revision petition has been filed against the grant of leave to contest. This Court was primarily of the view that once the eviction petition has been dismissed, the present revision petition has been rendered infructuous, however, Counsel for the petitioner insisted that since the Rent Controller has granted only leave to contest on the ground that in the same building another shop has been rented out to one Harwinder Singh, therefore, each tenancy will constitute one tenancy. Thus, the Rent Controller was barred from considering any other ground and dismissed the eviction petition. The petitioner-landlord has also filed Civil Revision No.2510 of 2007. A perusal of the judgment rendered, which is subject matter of challenge in Civil Revision No.2510 of 2007, reveals that following issues have been framed:- “1. Whether the petitioner is a NRI, if so its effect? OPA 2. Whether the petitioner required the premises in dispute for his own use and occupation? OPA 3. Whether the petitioner has concealed the material facts from the Court? OPA 4. Whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent? OPA 5. Relief.” Once a specific issue has been framed, whether the landlord requires the demised premises for his own use and occupation, it cannot be said that the parties could not adduce evidence qua this issue and the Rent Controller should not appreciate evidence led qua this issue. Though for grant of leave to contest, in the order one ground was taken as sufficient to hold that the eviction petition is triable, it cannot be said that all other grounds available to tenant cannot be raised subsequently. Hence, there is no merit in the eviction petition and the same is hereby dismissed. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] December 17, 2010. Judge kadyan