Civil Revision No.6386 of 2011(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6386 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision:19.10.2011 Rajiv Gupta ....Petitioner Versus Mohinder Kaur ....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Anand Chibbar, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL) This is tenant's revision petition challenging the impugned order of the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, dated 03.09.2011 ordering eviction of the petitioner under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act,1949 (for short 'the Act') applicable to Chandigarh. Briefly stated, the respondent-landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 13-B of the Act, for the ejectment of the petitioner from the demised premises stating that the petitioner was inducted as 'tenant' in the demised premises and she was an NRI and owner of the demised premises for more than 5 years as per the provisions of the Act and require the demised premises for the personal use and occupation of her and her family. The application for leave to defend filed by the petitioner was allowed by the Rent Civil Revision No.6386 of 2011(O&M) 2 Controller vide order dated 09.02.2011. The said order was challenged by the respondent- landlord before this Court vide Civil Revision No.1832 of 2011. Vide judgment of this Court dated 25.07.2011, aforesaid revision petition was accepted and the order dated 09.02.2011 passed by the Rent Controller was set aside. Consequently, vide impugned order dated 03.09.2011, the Rent Controller, Chandigarh had passed order of eviction against the petitioner. It could not be disputed before this Court that once leave to defend is not granted in a petition filed under the provisions of Section 13-B Eviction order has to follow. Provisions of the said Act as applicable to Chandigarh have already been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in Asha Chawla and others Vs. Union of India and others-CWP No.15378 of 2011 decided on 23.08.2011. Admittedly, the order of this Court dated 25.07.2011 in Civil Revision No.1832 of 2011 has not been challenged by the petitioner before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Once that is so, as a necessary corralliry to the aforesaid eviction order against the petitioner has to follow as per the provisions of Section 13-B of the Act as applicable to Chandigarh. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in the instant revision petition. Dismissed. October 19, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) savita JUDGE Civil Revision No.6386 of 2011(O&M) 3