Hemant Gupta, J. - (1.) RESPONDENT No. 1 sought ejectment of one Deshmukh Goyal and the petitioner on the ground of non payment of arrears of rent. The petitioner was impleaded as sub -tenant. A statement is purported to be made by Deshmukh Goyal and the petitioner before the learned Rent Controller on 20.05.2005 wherein undertaking was given that the premises would be vacated on or before 20.06.2006. The said statement is appended with the present petition as Annexure P -1. Admittedly, on the basis of said statement, no order of evidence was passed on being satisfied with any of the grounds of evidence available under Section 13(2) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act").
(2.) AN application was filed on 15.06.2005 withdrawing the statement made earlier. The learned Counsel for the landlord has made a statement that he has no objection in case the case is decided on merits. The said application was still pending when another application was filed on 4.1.2006 by the present petitioner for withdrawal of the application dated 15.06.2005 and to assert that petition for eviction be decided on merits. On the said date, statement of Deshmukh Goyal was recorded but the case was adjourned for reply of the landlady for 27.01.2006. On the said application, the impugned order was passed by the learned Rent Controller on 27.04.2006 whereby the application was dismissed and order of eviction was passed against the present petitioner granting her two months time to vacate the premises. The appeal against the said order was dismissed on 1.12.2006. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller is without any enquiry as contemplated in Section 13(2) of the Act. Therefore, the order of eviction passed by the learned authorities is wholly unjustified. It is also pointed out that no order of eviction can be passed on the basis of statement recorded on 20.04.2005 as the petitioner or Deshmukh Goyal have not admitted any of the grounds of eviction under the Act. It was also argued that before the order of eviction is passed, the petitioner has withdrawn her consent and, therefore, on the basis of alleged consent recorded on 20.04.2005, no order of eviction can be passed against the petitioner.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent has controverted the argument raised by the petitioner and contended that once the petitioner has made a statement to vacate the premises she is liable to vacate the same. The order of eviction has been passed on the basis of statement made by the petitioner and therefore, she cannot be permitted to wriggle out of her statement.;