Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J. - (1.) An application preferred by the landlord for eviction of the tenant under Section 13 of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter mentioned as the Act), is pending before the Rent Controller, Batala. When the application was fixed for conclusion of evidence by the tenant, petitioner herein, and the eviction application was heading for final adjudication, an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC for dismissal of the application on the ground that it did not disclose any cause of action, was preferred by the tenant which was resisted by the landlord. Finding plea of the petitioner-tenant to be untenable and also noticing that the application had been filed belatedly, the same was dismissed by the Rent Controller vide impugned order of 21.8.2014.
(2.) Challenging the said order, now it is claimed that when there is no cause of action, the application cannot proceed further. It is claimed that dismissal of the application of the petitioner-tenant on the ground that it was delayed, was improper. Reference has been made to Saleem Bhai & Others v. State of Maharashtra & Others, 2003(1) Civil Court Cases 509 (SC) , wherein it has been mentioned that powers under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC can be exercised at any stage of the suit by the court.
(3.) Reading of copy of the application for eviction (Annexure P-1) reveals that necessary facts regarding cause of action have duly been pleaded in para 2 thereof where grounds of eviction have been elaborately set out against the tenant (petitioner herein). Merely because separate para with regard to cause of action has not been set out, but necessary averments in respect of cause of action accruing to the landlord have been set out in para 2 and para 6 (prayer clause), the petition does not become bad, making it liable to be dismissed.;