Civil Revision No.3781 of 2007 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3781 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: July 21, 2009. Smt. Veena Jaipuria ...Petitioner(s) v. Rajender Prasad ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Pritam Saini, Advocate for the respondents. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): This revision petition is directed against the order dated 21.7.2007 passed by the Rent Controller, Mohindergarh, whereby, though the petitioner-landlady has been permitted to withdraw the eviction petition with liberty to file a fresh petition but not “on the same cause of action”. Mahabir Prasad Jain, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, was owner of the subject premises, who filed a petition in the year 1998 under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban Control of Rent & Eviction Act, 1973 for eviction of the respondent-tenant, inter-alia, on the grounds that the tenant has not paid the rent; and that the tenant (respondent No.1) has sub-let the premises to respondent No.2 without the written consent of the Civil Revision No.3781 of 2007 -: 2 :- landlord. It appears that at one point of time, the tenant was proceeded ex-parte. The Rent Controller accepted the tenant's prayer and set aside the ex-parte proceedings. The landlord challenged that order, the same was finally upheld by this Court. The respondent No.1 – tenant has thereafter filed his written statement on 13.9.2006. The issues were framed on 20.11.2006 and the evidence has been partly led. Meanwhile, Mahavir Prasad Jain, the landlord, died. The present petitioner was brought on record as his legal representative on 25.1.2006. In June, 2006, the petitioner moved an application under Order 23 Rule 1(3) CPC to withdraw the eviction petition with liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action, on the ground that the eviction petition instituted by her deceased father was suffering with some incurable defects. The Rent Controller, as noticed earlier, has permitted the petitioner to withdraw the eviction petition to file a fresh one but not on the same cause of action. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard at some length and the eviction petition and other material on record have been perused. As noticed earlier, the landlord sought the eviction of the respondent-tenants on the ground of non-payment of rent and sub-letting. Once the Rent Controller has accepted the petitioner's plea that the eviction petition was suffering with some incurable technical defects and could be withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh one, in my considered view, no restriction against filing of a fresh petition on the same cause of action, Civil Revision No.3781 of 2007 -: 3 :- could be imposed. Suffice it to say that there is no period of limitation prescribed to seek eviction of tenant on any of the grounds enumerated under Section 13 of the Act. It is a subsisting cause of action which shall continue to survive through a tenant can always plead and prove acquiscence, estoppel or written consent etc. of the landlord besides his defence plea on merits. Learned counsel for the respondent has referred to the decisions of this Court reported as :- (i) Rameshwar and others v. Ram Sarup and another, 2005(2) HRR 79, (ii) Shri Banke Ram v. Smt. Sarasti Devi, 1977 PLR 112, (iii) Nand Lal v. Bhim Sen, 2000(3) RCR (Civil) 173, (iv) Dharambir v. Mansa Ram, 1999(2) RCR (Rent) 287, (v) Sardari Lal Jain v. Smt. Dhanwanti Devi, 2002(2) RCR (Rent) 296, etc., to contend that when a valuable right has accrued in favour of the opposite-party, the plaintiff/petitioner cannot be permitted to frustrate the same by withdrawing the proceedings with liberty to file a fresh on the same cause of action. There can be no quarrel with the principle laid down in these cases but the same is not attracted to the facts of the present case for the reason that there is no finding returned by the Rent Controller in favour of the tenant that there is no sub-letting. For the reasons afore-stated, the revision petition is allowed; the impugned order is modified to the extent that the petitioner shall be at liberty to file a fresh eviction petition as permitted by the Rent Controller on any of the grounds available under Section 13 of the Act. Dasti. July 21, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge