IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.363 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 28.01.2011 Sham Gopal Sharma . . .Petitioner Versus Bal Krishan Gupta . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Ms.Puja Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against order passed by the Rent Controller, Ferozepur dated 16.11.2010 by which an application filed by the tenant/petitioner seeking leave to defend has been dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has not filed the application by way of an affidavit, which is the basic requirement of law as provided under Section 18-A (4) of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short ‘the Act’). Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that before passing any order, the Court has to complete the procedure as provided under Section 18-A of the Act. Since, there is no declaration of the valid service, therefore, the ejectment order could not have been passed. I am afraid that this argument cannot survive for the reasons that the application, which has been filed by the petitioner, is not by way of an affidavit, which is the basic requirement of law and until and unless it is duly maintainable before the Court, the same could not have been entertained as rightly done by the Rent Controller. In view thereof, present revision petition is found to be devoid of any merit and as such the same is hereby dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) January 28, 2011 JUDGE vivek