CR No.1990 of 2011 (O&M) -1- ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1990 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:04.04.2011. State of Punjab and another ...Petitioners Versus Sukhjeet Singh Sodhi ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Ram Lal Gupta, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for the petitioners. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) The tenants are in revision against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh dated 12.02.2011 by which an application filed by them under Section 18-B(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short “the Act”], seeking leave to defend an application filed under Section 13-B of the Act, has been dismissed on the ground that it is not filed within the stipulated period. Admittedly, after dismissal of the application filed under Section 18-B(5) of the Act, the learned Rent Controller allowed the eviction petition filed by the landlord under Section 13-B of the Act without even examination of the landlord to prove the ingredients of Section 13-B of the Act. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the present revision petition has been filed in which the only argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is that even if the application under Section 18-A of the Act is declined, the learned Rent Controller was required at least to call upon the landlord to prove his case by examining himself. He relies upon an order dated 19.01.2009 passed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.347 of 2009 (arising out of SLP(C) No.29807 of 2008) titled as Kamal Raj Bansal Vs. Raj Pal Singh. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the CR No.1990 of 2011 (O&M) -2- ***** available record. The issue raised by learned counsel for the petitioners was subject matter of contention before this Court as there were two divergent views of this Court in this regard in the cases of M.R.F. Limited and another V. S. Major Singh Purewal, 2009(1) RCR 624 and CR No.395 of 2008 titled as 'Paramjitt Singh Bara Vs. Joginder Singh and another' decided on 15.12.2009, as a result of which Full Bench was constituted in Civil Revision No.1493 of 2010 titled as 'Anwar Ali V. Gian Kaur' decided on 09.11.2010 where similar argument was raised that the bare minimum has to be proved by the landlord in his petition under Section 13-B of the Act even if the application of the tenant to leave to defend is dismissed. I am afraid that this argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the Full Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 09.11.2010 passed in the case of Anwar Ali (supra) has taken into consideration Kamal Raj Bansal's case (supra) and has held as under: - “The order dated 19.01.2009 in Kamal Raj Bansal (supra), in our considered view, does not erode the efficacy of the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in Baldev Singh Bajwa's case (supra) inasmuch as neither the decision in Baldev Singh Bajwa (supra) has been referred to in the said order nor the detailed reason for the conclusion reached is available in the order of the Court. Insofar as the decision in Modula India's case (supra) is concerned, the Apex Court in the said case was dealing with the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, which did not contain provisions pari materia with Section 13-B and 18-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. Moreover, in Modula India (supra), the Apex Court was dealing with a situation where in defence of the CR No.1990 of 2011 (O&M) -3- ***** defendant-tenant was struck off. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the decision in Modula India's case (supra) does not detract from the principles of law laid down in Baldev Singh Bajwa's case (supra). The above discussions would lead us to the conclusion that in a situation where under Section 13-B of the Act, leave is refused to the tenant to defend the proceedings brought by the N.R.I. landlord, eviction of the tenant has to be ordered as an automatic consequence. Having answered the question referred in the manner indicated above, we remit the matter to the learned Single Judge for a decision on merits.” In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and as such, the same is hereby dismissed, however, without any order as to costs. April 04, 2011 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge