C.R.No.3203 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. C.R.No.3203 of 2011 Date of decision: 10.8.2011 Pawan Kumar and others .....Petitioners. vs. Balbir Singh ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. -- Present: Mr.Ajay Mehra, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Divanshu Jain, Advocate, for the respondent. -- Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral) This is tenant's revision petition challenging the impugned orders dated 25.3.2011 (P1 and P2) whereby his application for leave to defend the ejectment application filed under section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, was declined and consequently eviction of the petitioner was ordered. Shorn of unnecessary details it is suffice to say that respondent landlord sought eviction of the petitioner from the demised premises i.e. three rooms, gallery, back courtyard, latrine, bathroom, commonly used at ground floor of House No.1108 Sector 19-B, Chandigarh. In his application for leave to defend the petitioner has stated that the respondent was already having accommodation in a part of the demised building and, therefore, at the most it was a case of additional accommodation and, therefore, leave to defend should be granted to the petitioner. However, the Rent Controller, vide impugned order rejected the aforesaid prayer and ordered his eviction. C.R.No.3203 of 2011 2 Before this Court counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of this Court in Amarjit Singh Chadha v. Col.Jasbir Singh Likhari, Civil Revision No.7505 of 2010 decided on 20.4.2011, wherein it has been held that where a specified landlord is already in possession of a portion of the demised premises and tenant is in possession of some part of the demised premises, then it would be a case of claim of an additional accommodation and as the landlord would not hanker for immediate shelter after his retirement, the delay in deciding the eviction petition otherwise than by way of the summary procedure, which is provided under section 13- A of the Act, would not cause any harm and the question of sufficiency and suitability of the accommodation in possession of the landlord can be decided after the trial. Mr.Divanshu Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has not disputed the correctness of the aforesaid judgment but has submitted before this Court that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the impugned order has been passed correctly. It is submitted that the respondent has undergone a surgery of spinal injury and he is not fully fit. He has only one room and a kitchen on ground floor and first floor, and the second floor is in possession of the co-owners. The family of the petitioner consisted of himself, his wife, married son, married daughter and grand son and if the leave is granted that will delay the decision of the case. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. There is no dispute that respondent-landlord is in possession of a part of demised premises. The learned counsel for the respondent also C.R.No.3203 of 2011 3 could not dispute the principles of law as settled in Amarjit Singh Chadha's case (supra). His objection is that if leave is granted the same will cause delay which can frustrate the genuine need of the respondent. Keeping in view the stand taken by the parties and the judgment of this Court, this petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. The petitioner is granted leave to defend the eviction petition. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the Rent Controller is directed to dispose of the rent application within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Rent Controller on 23.8.2011. (Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge August 10, 2011 rk