- (1.) C.M. No.15330 of 2015 The present application is for pre-ponement of hearing of the case and since the main case is listed for hearing today the same has been rendered infructuous. Disposed of as such. CR No. 4414 of 2015
(2.) Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 18.05.2015 passed by the Rent Controller, Karnal vide which the eviction petition for ejectment under Section 13 (A) (1-A) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as 1973 Act) has been allowed in the light of the fact that the leave to defend was not granted by the Rent Controller which order has attained finality up to this Court.
(3.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petition for ejectment was not maintainable as one petition is not maintainable against two separate tenants having separate tenancy and for separate purposes. He contends that even if leave to defend has been declined but still the landlord has to stand on his own legs with regard to the petition being maintainable. If the petition itself is not maintainable, ejectment order could not have been passed by the Rent Controller. He accordingly states that the impugned order cannot sustain, specially in the light of the fact that the tenancy is different, in support of which he has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Surinder Singh and another v. Rup Kaur and others, 1986 2 RCR(Rent) 53 as also Manohar Singh Sarhadi v. Ramji Dass and another, 1990 1 RCR(Rent) 227. He thus contends that the present petition may be allowed and the impugned order be set aside.;