IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. NO.24345 CII OF 2007 & CIVIL REVISION NO.5873 OF 2003 DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 29, 2008 Leela and another .....Petitioners VERSUS Gurmit Singh and another ....Respondents 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. Salim Malik, Advocate for Mr. K. K. Mehta, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate, for the respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. On the request made by learned counsel for the respondents, the main revision, which stands admitted, is taken up for hearing today. The respondents are the landlords, who filed a petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act,1949 (for short, “the Act”) as applicable to Chandigarh, for eviction of petitioners, Leela wife of Atma Ram and Rani daughter of Sh.Atma Ram. On a notice being issued, appearance was put on behalf of the petitioners. A request was made for assessing the provisional rent as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan Vs. Jagdamba Inds. CIVIL REVISION NO.5873 OF 2003 (O&M) :{ 2 }: Corp., PLR 2002 370. After hearing the parties, the Rent Controller assessed the provisional rent as Rs.150/- per month and payable from August 1997 till 1999. The interest was assessed as Rs.1103/- and costs to be Rs.200/-. Thus, the complete amount worked out to be Rs.5653/-. The petitioners were given time to tender the rent and case was adjourned for PWs. On 15.1.2003, a request was made for time to deposit the rent as assessed and the case was accordingly adjourned to 28.3.2003. When the Rent Controller found that the rent as assessed was not deposited till 8.5.2003, the case was taken up for hearing and he ordered the ejectment of the tenant-petitioners from the premises and directed them to hand over the vacant possession within a period of one month. The petitioners preferred an appeal against the said order, which has been dismissed on 12.9.2003. The petitioners are now in a revision before this Court. The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the petition has not been decided on merits but eviction has been ordered only on account of non-payment of rent. While issuing notice of motion, the dis-possession of the petitioners has been stayed since 12.12.2003. The case has been adjourned from time to time. Today, respondent-landlords have filed an application, seeking vacation of stay, giving history and background of the case. It is prayed that either the order dated 12.12.2003, staying dis- possession be vacated or alternatively the order passed by the Rent CIVIL REVISION NO.5873 OF 2003 (O&M) :{ 3 }: Controller dated 8.5.2003 be set-aside and the case be remanded back to the Rent Controller for deciding the rent petition on merits expeditiously. Notice of this application was issued to the non- applicants. Counsel appearing for the petitioners has not been able to say anything. The primary prayer made in the present revision petition is for setting-aside the order passed by the Rent Controller impugned in the revision petition on the ground that the rent petition was required to be decided on merits, rather then disposing it of in a summary manner only on the basis of non-payment of provisional rent as assessed. Since the respondents themselves have come forward with the prayer that the impugned order be set-aside with a direction to the Rent Controller to decide the petition on merits, it will be futile to pend the revision petition. The main prayer made in the revision petition is, thus, being conceded by the respondents. Accordingly, the order dated 8.5.2003, directing eviction of the petitioner on account of non-payment of provisional rent, as assessed, is set-aside. The case is remanded back to the Rent Controller, who would decide the rent petition on merits taking into account the pleadings and in accordance with law. Since the ejectment is sought on the ground of personal necessity and on the ground that the same is unfit for human habitation, the Rent Controller would give priority to the petition for disposal and may dispose it of expeditiously. The parties, through their counsel, are CIVIL REVISION NO.5873 OF 2003 (O&M) :{ 4 }: directed to appearing before the Rent Controller on 15.2.2008. The respondents would be at liberty to move any appropriate application in regard to non-payment of the rent as assessed before the Rent Controller. The revision is disposed of accordingly. January 29 ,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE