Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J. - (1.) ORDER dated 9.4.2014 passed by the Rent Controller, Patiala rejecting the application moved by the tenant -respondent (now petitioner) for leave to defend the petition preferred by the landlord under Section 13A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), has been impugned by the petitioner in this civil revision petition.
(2.) IT is claimed that the petition under section 13 -A of the Act does not conform to the statutory requirements and thus, should not have been entertained. It is also claimed that the Rent Controller without satisfying compliance of the provisions of Section 13 -A of the Act, firstly, entertained the petition and when application to defend the petition was filed by the tenant, the said application was also rejected without any sound basis. Hearing has been provided to the counsel for the petitioner while going through the paper book.
(3.) PERUSAL of the impugned order reveals that not only provisions of Section 13 -A of the Act have duly been kept in view by the Rent Controller but even the points taken by the petitioner -tenant for seeking leave to defend the petition have been discussed in detail. The landlord has retired from service regarding which he has produced a certificate issued by the competent authority showing that he is covered under the Act and was discharging his duty on a post in connection with the affairs of the Union of India. There is further affidavit of the landlord that he did not own and possess any suitable accommodation in the local area. The petition under Section 13 -A of the Act has been moved within one year of his retirement by the petitioner in compliance with the statutory provisions.;