CR No. 784 of 2010 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 784 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 24.02.2011 M/s Avtar Electric Store and another . . .Petitioners Versus Makhan Singh Grewal . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.Anil Shukla, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Santosh Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against order dated 9.12.2009 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana by which an application filed under Section 18-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short ‘the Act’) seeking leave to defend the petition under Section 13-B of the Act filed by the landlord has been declined. The only argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is that while declining leave to defend, eviction order has straight away been passed without there being any examination of the landlord to prove his bona fide necessity. He has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of “MRF Limited and another Versus S. Major Singh Purewal” 2009(1) RCR (Rent) 624 and in view thereof the following order was passed on 9.11.2011: “Argues invalidity of the impugned order by pointing out that not even an iota of evidence was recorded in support of the averment made by the respondent – landlord. Reliance, in support of the advocated view, is placed upon “MRF Limited and another Versus S. Major Singh Purewal” 2009(1) RCR (Rent) 624. CR No. 784 of 2010 (O&M) - 2 - Notice of motion. 18.02.2010. Dasti only. Liberty to serve through the counsel representing the respondent before the learned Trial Court too. In the meantime, the operation of the impugned order shall stand stayed.” After notice of motion, respondent has appeared and has submitted that the Coordinate Bench of this Court in CR No.395 of 2008 titled as “Paramjit Singh Bara Versus Joginder Singh and another” had taken a contrary view that after dismissal of the leave to defend there is no need to examine landlord to prove the bona fide necessity. He also pointed out that on 19.5.2010 in CR No.1493 of 2010 titled as “Anawar Ali Versus Gian Kaur” the matter was referred to the Larger Bench with the following law point: “Whether, in terms of the provisions of Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, an order for eviction of a tenant can be granted by the Rent Controller without examining the landlord (as held by Surya Kant, J.) or whether it is legally compulsive for the Rent Controller to examine the landlord before considering the grant or otherwise of the requested eviction plea (as held by K.Kannan, J. in M.R.F.'s case (supra)).” [ Consequently, the matter was placed before the Full Bench of this Court on 19.11.2010 wherein it was held that “the above discussions would lead us to the conclusion that in a situation where under Section 13-B of the Act, leave is refused to the tenant to defend the proceedings brought by the N.R.I. landlord, eviction of the tenant has to be ordered as an automatic consequence”. In view thereof, the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioners on the basis of which notice of motion was issued and stay was granted does not survive and as such present revision petition is hereby dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) FEBRUARY 24, 2011 JUDGE Vivek