IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.828 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 22nd September, 2010 Usha Rani … Petitioner Versus Jaswinder Singh … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Bhrigu Dutt Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Paramjit Rajput, Advocate for the respondent. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Civil Misc. No. 24261-CII of 2010 CM is allowed and a copy of order dated 19th January, 2009 annexed therewith is taken on record. Civil Revision No.828 of 2010 Application filed by the petitioner seeking leave to contest was dismissed by the Rent Controller, Jalandhar vide order dated 22.10.2009, being barred by limitation as it was filed after 77 days from the date of receipt of notice. Briefly stated, respondent-landlord had filed an eviction petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’) to cause eviction of the petitioner from the premises described in the head-note of the eviction Civil Revision No.828 of 2010 (O&M) petition. Since the respondent-landlord pleaded that he, being a Non- Resident Indian, could invok the special provision of Section 13-B of the Act. The eviction petition was instituted on 14th November, 2008 and the notice was issued for 19th January, 2009. It is stated that on 4th December, 2008, the Process Server had recorded refusal of the petitioner on the summons. This report of refusal was not accepted by the Rent Controller and on 19th January, 2009, he passed the following order: “Present: Counsel for the petitioner. Summons have been received with the report of refusal. On perusal of the report and further in the ends of justice, respondent be now summoned through Munadi and affixation for 10.3.2009 on deposit of requisite munadi fee. Sd/- H.S. Grewal RC/19.1.2009” In pursuance thereof, Munadi (proclamation) was held on 5th March, 2009. Hearing the proclamation, within seven days, i.e. on 12th March, 2009 the petitioner filed an application seeking leave to contest. This application was declined by the Rent Controller on the ground that it was barred by limitation and he construed the limitation from the day when on the earlier summons, refusal was recorded. After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that once the Rent Controller had come to a conclusion that the report of refusal was not to be accepted and fresh summons were to be issued and this time service was effected through Munadi (proclamation)/ affixation, then the service is to be counted from the date when such a proclamation was made. That being so, the petitioner had instituted the application for leave to defend within a specified time. The application of 2 Civil Revision No.828 of 2010 (O&M) the petitioner was not decided on merits, but was dismissed primarily on the ground of limitation. In these circumstances, the impugned order dated 22nd October, 2009 is hereby set aside. The Rent Controller, Jalandhar is directed to decide whether application for leave to defend is to be allowed or not after examining the merits within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. With the observations made above, present revision petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE September 22, 2010 rps 3