R.L.ANAND, J. - (1.) THIS is a civil revision filed by the specified landlord and it has been directed against the order dated 21st December, 2000 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Kharar, who allowed the application of the tenant for leave to defend.
(2.) SOME facts can be noticed in the following manner : Petitioner Shri Harinder Pal Singh Saini is a specified landlord and he filed as ejectment application under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the respondent- tenant Principal Ranjit Singh Sandhu. The tenant was served. He filed an application for seeking permission of the learned Rent Controller to defend the rent petition. The application has been allowed by the learned Rent Controller for the reasons given in Para Nos. 3, 4 and 5 of the impugned order dated 21.12.2000, which are reproduced as under : "3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judicial file carefully. After having done so, I am of the opinion that the applicant/defendant has filed the application to leave to defend on the very next date i.e. on 10.8.2000 after receiving the summons of petition on 9.8.2000, which is admitted by respondent/petitioner which is within time. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner has quoted an authority i.e. P.L.R. Vol. XCI, 1987-1, page 344 of Punjab and Haryana High Court, wherein it was held that the tenant must give the particulars of the alleged sufficient accommodation with the landlord and the details of the other property alleged to have been vacated by other tenants and rented out by the landlord. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in this case the respondent has not given the detailed particulars as to how the landlord has the sufficient accommodation. 5. The above said authority is not applicable to the instant case since in this case the tenant has not yet even alleged that the applicant has got sufficient accommodation but he simply wants the leave to defend and it is only if the leave is granted that the defendant shall be able to put up his case and in the instant case (unlike the above said authority) the respondent has not yet submitted any plea of sufficient accommodation with the landlord, therefore, the detail or particulars cannot be expected in this case. Accordingly, in my opinion the application to leave to defend has been filed within time and the same is to be allowed and as such the same is hereby allowed." Aggrieved by the order, the present revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and with his assistance, dispose of this civil revision. As I stated above, this is a petition under Section 13-A of the Act which gives right to the landlord to recover immediate possession of the residential or scheduled building. In order to dispose of such type of application, a special procedure has been prescribed under section 18-A of the Act. It will be appropriate for me to reproduce sub-section (5) of Section 18-A of the Act which runs as follows : "The Controller may give to the tenant leave to contest the application if the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such facts as would disentitle the specified landlord or, as the case may be, the widow, widower, child, grand- child or widowed daughter-in-law of such specified landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of possession of the residential building or scheduled building, as the case may be, under section 13-A."
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the application and the affidavit filed by the tenant before the Rent Controller does not disclose any cause of action in the light of the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 18-A of the Act and, therefore, the order passed by the learned Rent Controller on the basis of it, is erroneous.;