K.Kannan, J.

1. Civil Revision No. 5979 and 6063 of 2007 are respectively petitions arising out of petitions filed by the same landlord in relation to the ground floor and the first floor of the building respectively. The landlords requirement to the premises under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was upheld by the Rent Controller and the aggrieved tenants are the revision petitioner before this Court. The grounds of challenge are the same in both the petitions and therefore they are disposed of by a common order. The objections by the tenants are taken on five different grounds.

1. The landlords withdrawal of an application filed in respect of the property without any liberty obtained from the Rent Controller for prosecuting a fresh application on the same ground constituted a bar under Order 23 Rule (1), (3) and (4) of the Civil Procedure Code.

2. The affidavit given by the party in Court in support of the chief examination was not properly verified and therefore could not be relied upon.

3. The certificate of retirement from Government service as contemplated under Section 13-A of the Act. The sale deed on the basis of which the petitions had been filed was not proved and therefore, the petition itself is not maintainable.

4. The sale deed in favour of the landlord had not been properly proved.

2. As regards the bar of the institution of the fresh petition the basis of the tenants contention was that the landlord had earlier filed an application for eviction on 29.7.2005 and objection had been taken by the tenant that as per the contentions of the landlord he was due for retirement only on 31.7.2009 and the petition had been filed more than one year before his actual date of retirement and hence was pre-mature. Based on such a contention, the landlord had made a statement that in view of the submissions made by the tenant, the petitions that he had filed could be withdrawn. The Rent Controller had also passed an order on 22.11.2005 that the landlord was permitted to withdraw the petition. The learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the tenant argued that if the previous petition contained formal defect in the matter of institution of the petition and it was found that objection of the tenant was tenable that was a ground for the landlord to seek for permission for withdrawal with liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. Order 23 Rule 1 (4) clearly laid down that if a withdrawal was made without obtaining such permission to file a fresh petition, the petition itself was not maintainable. He refers to the objection regarding the non-maintainability of the petition without seeking liberty to file a fresh petition and seeks strength to his case by reference to a decision of this Court in Mehtab Singh v. Tilak Raj, 1988(1) RCR(Rent) 159 : AIR 1989 P&H 12 where this Honble Court had held that the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 clause (4) was applicable to the Rent Control proceedings also. Similar was the judgment in Ram Sarup Bhalla v. Barkat Singh, reported in 1990(2) RCR(Rent) 392 (P&H) where this Court had held that the application for ejectment by a specified landlord filed under Section 13-A which had been withdrawn without permission of the Rent Controller to file a fresh application, the second petition would be barred. The Supreme Court had occasion to consider the case arisen out of Bombay Tenancy Act in V.C. Charati v. Hussein Nhanu Jamadar, reported in JT 1998(8) SC 120 where it held that even a wrong decision if not challenged would constitute the bar of res judicata.

3. The propositions laid down by these decisions strike the other side of the pendulum in certain other decisions laid down by this Court in Mangal Sain v. Jiwan Dass, reported in 2003(1) RCR(Rent) 54 (P&H) where in the proceedings dealing with Haryana (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, this Court held that if a landlord is allowed to withdraw the