Civil Revision No. 1199 of 2010 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1199 of 2010 Date of decision : 23.2.2010 Punit Ahluwalia (NRI) ....Petitioner Versus Gurjeewan Grewal ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. D.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioner S. D. ANAND, J. The grievance of the petitioner-landlord, who had filed the impugned ejectment petition to obtain the eviction of the respondent herein from the tenanted premises in terms of provisions of Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), is that the learned Rent Controller is not proceeding in the matter in terms of provisions of Section 13-B of the Act which provide for a day-to- day trial of the proceedings of the indicated category. It is argued that the very purpose of having the provisions aforementioned on the statute book would be defeated if the Rent Controllers are allowed to adjourn the proceedings on the virtual drop of a hat. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, states that he is not satisfied with the order granted by the learned Trial Court that the matter would not be adjourned for more than 15 days at a time and that short dates will be granted in future. The learned counsel insists on the issuance of a direction to the learned Rent Controller to comply with the Civil Revision No. 1199 of 2010 -2- *** provisions of Section 13-B of the Act. The learned counsel, after informing that the matter is presently listed for filing of the reply by the party opposite, has an apprehension that the reply would be taken on record on the next date and the matter will be further adjourned for filing of a rejoinder. It is thereafter only, the argument proceeds, that the learned Rent Controller shall proceed to frame issues. On his part, the presentation on behalf of the petitioner is that it is only the petitioner who will step into the witness box, as his own witness and would close the evidence. While there can be no dispute with the fact that the provisions of Section 13-B of the Act conceptualize a day-to-day trial of the proceedings launched in terms of Section 13-B of the Act, it also cannot be wished away that dockets in the judicial Courts are heavy and the holding of a day to day trial even in case of this category would not appear to be feasible. I have no reasons to disbelieve the learned Rent Controller in the matter of observation that pendency in that Court is very heavy. In that view of things, it would be impractical to order a day to day trial in the matter. All that learned Rent Controller has observed is that not more than 15 days adjournment shall be given. 15 days is the outer limit indicated by the learned Rent Controller. He has not ruled out the fixture of a date within that outer limit. While I agree with the learned Rent Controller in the context of whatever has been observed in the grant of impugned order, I would expect the Court to notice and maintain cognizance of the grievance of the petitioner noticed in the course of the foregoing paras of this order. The petition shall stand dismissed in limine with the observations noticed above. This Court would hope and trust that the Civil Revision No. 1199 of 2010 -3- *** learned Rent Controller would conduct the proceedings with more than expected despatch noticed in the course of the impugned order in order to inspire confidence of the petitioner in the administration of justice. It may be clarified that observations made in the course of this order shall not be taken, in any manner, to suggest that the learned Rent Controller did not conduct the proceedings with expected despatch. The learned Rent Controller shall proceed further in the matter in accordance with law. February 23, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE