IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.3261 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:17.05.2011. Niramal Kaur ...Petitioner Versus Satpal Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Premjit Kalia, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. (Oral) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 16.03.2011 by which an innocuous order has been passed by the learned Rent Controller, Tarn Taran on an application filed by the tenant under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short “CPC”] giving him permission to mud plaster the roof of the demised premises (shop). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the presence of Section 12 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short “the Act”], no order could have been passed under Section 151 CPC. He also submits that Section 12 of the Act provides for an inquiry before making such repairs. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the available record from which I have found that the nomenclature of the application is different, but the relief sought squarely falls within the definition of Section 12 of the Act. Insofar as the inquiry is concerned, the Rent Controller has relied upon the report of the Civil Engineer and has only given permission to mud plaster the roof of the demised premises. In view thereof, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed in limine, however, without any order as to costs. May 17, 2011. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge