CIVIL REVISION NO.6439 OF 2007 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 18, 2008 Rajinder Kumar and another .....Petitioners VERSUS Gurbachan Singh ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 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. Amit Rawal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Chetan Mittal, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Vishal Garg, Advocate, for the respondent. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL) This order will dispose of Civil Revision Nos.6439 of 2007 (Rajinder Kumar and another Vs. Gurbachan Singh), 6441 of 2007 (Mohanbir Singh Vs. Gurbachan Singh) and 6439 of 2007 (Mohanbir Singh Vs. Gurbachan Singh). The facts are being taken from Civil Revision No.6439 of 2007. Gurbachan Singh filed a petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, “the CIVIL REVISION NO.6439 OF 2007 :{ 2 }: Act”), seeking immediate possession of one shop forming part of property No.B.XVII.96, Bharat Nagar Chowk, Ludhiana. On a notice having been issued, the petitioner filed an application for leave to defend. This prayer of the petitioners has been declined. Mr.Amit Rawal, counsel appearing for the petitioners, has taken me through the pleadings as well as orders passed, to urge that the submissions made by the petitioners have not been properly dealt with or adjudicated by the court of a Rent Controller. The petitioners have raised dispute in regard to the title of Gurbachan Singh etc. on the basis of alleged sale deed. After noticing the submissions made before it, the Court has observed:- “I have gone through the facts and the arguments put forth by the learned counsel of the parties and I am fully agreed with the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has fulfilled all the ingredients needed under Section 13-B of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act and the authorities put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as the respondent has denied the relationship of landlord and tenant, so he can not take benefit under Rent Laws. I have gone through the authorities put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner i.e. 2003 (2) PLR 371 and 2003 (1) RCR 533 and the same are fully applicable on the facts of the present petition, as the petitioner has given up the ground of non-payment of rent.” CIVIL REVISION NO.6439 OF 2007 :{ 3 }: The submission in regard to title etc. has not been considered at all. The record in this case was summoned and is perused with the assistance of the counsel. It would not be appropriate for this Court to express any opinion on merit one way or the other. However, it is noticed that the trial Court has not taken into consideration whether the respondent herein was able to satisfy all the requirements mentioned in Section 13-B of the Act. The leave to defend could have been declined if the Court had come to a positive conclusion that requirement of the Sections was satisfied. While declining leave to defend, the trial Court has only mentioned that requirement of Section 13-B is satisfied without discussing the material or the submissions made before it, indicating how the ingredients of Section 13-B of the Act were fully satisfied. It would, thus, be appropriate that the case goes back before the Rent Controller to decide the issue afresh after granting opportunity of hearing to both the parties. It is so ordered. It is made clear that only case is being remanded back for re-consideration as to whether the respondent was able to satisfy the requirements of Section 13-B of the Act and whether the petitioners had made out any case for grant of leave to defend the petition. No opinion on merits is being expressed. It would be appropriate for the Rent Controller to consider the submissions made before him and pass an order, giving his view on the aspects of material before it and the submissions made before him. The parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the Court of Rent Controller on 26.3.2008. Needless to mention that CIVIL REVISION NO.6439 OF 2007 :{ 4 }: the present petition is filed under Section 13-B of the Act and as such, would be required to be decided and dealt with urgency. The revision petitions are accordingly disposed of. March 18, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE