J.V. Gupta, J. - (1.) THIS petition is directed against the order or the Rent Controller dated 19th May, 1987, whereby eviction order has been passed against the tenant under Section 13 -A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act as amended (for short the 'Act').
(2.) LACHHMAN Dass -Landlord filed an original ejectment application under Section 13 of the Act on 10th October, 1986. Written statement thereto was filed on 8th December, 1986. Since he retired from service on 31st October, 1986, he moved an application for amendment of the eviction application and to convert the same under Section 13 -A of the Act. The said application was filed on 15th January, 1987. Reply thereto was filed on 27th January. 1987, Vide order, dated 2nd February, 1987. amendment was allowed on payment of Rs. 20/ - as costs. Case was to come up on 10th February, 1987, for (Sic)ling the amended petition. On 10th February, 1987, the case was adjourned to 23rd February, 1987 as the Presiding Officer was on leave. On 23rd February, 1987, the amended application was filed and the case was adjourned to 2nd of March, 1987 for reply. No reply was (Sic)led on 2nd March, 1987 and it was adjourned to 9th March, 1987, when the reply was filed and the case was adjourned for filing the joinder and issues to 25th March, 1987. The case was then adjourned (Sic)r issues to 1st April, 1987. At this stage, the learned Rent Controller (Sic)cided the application on 19th May, 1987 on the ground that the (Sic)ant failed to move an application for leave to contest within the (Sic)e prescribed as contemplated under Section 18 -A of the amended act. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that no notice as proscribed under Section 18 was issued to the tenant and, therefore, there was no occasion for him to seek permission to contest the application as such. In any case, he was allowed to file the reply thereto which was duly filed and in view of the said reply, the question of granting the leave could be considered. Moreover, According to the learned Counsel, from the order passed by the Rent Controller from time to time, it could not be held that the procedure as prescribed under Section 18 -A of the Act was being complied with and, therefore, the case of the tenant could not be prejudiced on that account. In any case, according to the learned Counsel, since the premises was let out for business purposes, it was a fit case for leave to contest so that it could be proved that the landlord was not entitled to seek ejectment from the demised premises under Section 13 -A of the Act for his personal occupation.
(3.) ON the other hand the learned Counsel for the landlord Respondent submitted that since the tenant failed to make an application within the prescribed period for seeking leave to contest the eviction order has been rightly passed by the Rent Controller.;