IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.2332 of 2011 Date of decision: 19.10.2011 Umesh Jauhar -----Petitioner Vs. Prem Singh -----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. Chetan Mittal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kunal Mulwani, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. P.K. Bansal, Advocate for the respondent. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. This is landlord’s revision petition challenging order dated 15.2.2011, whereby in a petition filed under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, “the Act”), the respondent-tenant has been granted leave to defend. While granting leave to defend, the Rent Controller observed as under:- “12. Another contention of the respondent is that the petitioner has sufficient accommodation. In this C.R. No.2332 of 2011 regard, the petitioner has specifically mentioned in para no.7 of the application that the petitioner has three rooms on ground floor, four rooms on first floor and two rooms on top floor and out of these the applicant is in possession of only one room on the top floor, meaning there 8 rooms are in possession of the petitioner. Out of those 8 rooms, there is one drawing room on the ground floor which has been constructed after converting two rooms in one room. All the remaining rooms are being used as living rooms or bed rooms. In this way, except from the drawing room, the petitioner is having 7 rooms in the house. Family of the petitioner consist of his mother, petitioner himself, his wife, his one son and two daughters. One of the daughter is married and the petitioner is alleging that daughter of the married daughter resides with the petitioner. In this way, if the petitioner gives one room to each of the family members, even then one room remains spare. As such, there are strong arguable grounds in the present petition. Previously also, the petition of the petitioner on the ground of personal necessity has been dismissed. In the reply also, the petitioner has alleged that family of the petitioner is going to increase in number in future. In such circumstances, at this stage, any urgent requirement, prima facie, not appears. In such circumstances, it will be in the interest of justice if both the parties are directed to prove their case by way of evidence. As such, the application deserves to be allowed.” 2 C.R. No.2332 of 2011 A perusal of the aforesaid observations would show that leave to defend has been granted to the respondent-tenant on the ground that the petitioner-landlord has sufficient accommodation at his disposal. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the Rent Controller, Chandigarh to decide the petition pending between the parties keeping in view only the grounds on which leave to defend has been granted. October 19, 2011 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ak JUDGE 3