Ranjit Singh Sarkaria, J. - (1.) PUNJAB National Bank is litigating with a N.R.I., who has sought the eviction of the Bank from his premises rented out to Bank. The Rent Controller had directed ejectment of the Petitioner -Bank, against which the Bank had filed revision. The Bank is seen fighting hard to retain a rented property, unmindful of the fact that Bank is a public institution but is behaving like a normal contentious tenant to retain property taken on rent.
(2.) THE revision petition was dismissed for non -prosecution on 7.7.2010 and so the application has now been filed after a delay of 172 days not only for recall of the order dismissing the revision in default but for condoning the delay in making the said approach. Considering the fact that the Bank still has been able to retain possession of the rented property for nearly over a year despite the order standing against it, the Court was not inclined to recall the order dated 7.7.2010. It may need a notice that order of ejectment has been passed on 5.3.2007 but still Bank has been able to retain possession of the property. Counsel for the Petitioners pleaded that due to an inadvertent miss on his part, the impugned order came to be passed. Considering this fact, it is considered appropriate to recall the order dated 7.7.2010 by condoning the delay in making the approach. By recalling the order, the revision is restored to its original position and the counsel for the Petitioners is given time to make submissions on merits.
(3.) THE main submissions, which the Counsel have advanced, are that the need of the Respondent -NRI was not bonafide and that he had negotiated with the Bank for enhancement of rent but had subsequently backed out, which would impliedly show that personal need was not genuine.;