Gokal Chand Mital, J.

1. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the record of the executing court as also of the Rent Controller, who passed ex-parte ejectment order against the petitioner I am of the opinion that it is a fit case in which suo motu power of revision deserves to be exercised in the ends of justice. section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called the Act) empowers this Court to revise an order of ejectment passed under the Act, after examining the records. When the case was initially heard at motion hearing on 11th March, 1981, even at that time it appeared to me that the order of ejectment passed against the petitioner might be erroneous and that is why not only the records of the proceedings for setting aside the ex-parte ejectment order were sent for but the record of the Rent Controller who passed the ejectment order was also sent for. On 23rd of April, 1981 both the parties were represented before me and the case was adjourned to await the records. Finally, the case was taken up on 23rd of July, 1981, and after the parties were heard at length, I decided to issue notice to the respondent. Accordingly, Shri J.S. Wasu, appearing for the respondent accepted the same and stated that he was ready with all arguments to justify the maintenance of the ejectment order dated 1st of April, 1975. I was prepared to grant adjournment to counsel for both the parties to assist me in this matter but counsel for both the parties frankly stated at the bar that they were fully prepared with the case and did not want an adjournment and requested that the case be heard and decided. Accordingly, I proceeded to hear the counsel for the parties at full length both in the revision whcih has been filed against the order of the Rent Controller refusing to set aside the ex-parte ejectment order as also in the suo motu revision against the order of ejectment and after hearing them fully reserved the judgment.

2. After the judgment was kept reserved, on 3rd August, 1981, CM No. 2763-C-II of 1981 was filed by Raj Kumar Kapur under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil procedure (hereinafter called the Code), for impleading him as a respondent and for giving human opportunity to argue the case as he was the newly inducted tenants a part of the premises in dispute and had come in possession of that part of 7th March, 1981 during the pendency of the revision petition in this Court under the same landlord on 4th of August, 1981, notice of the application was issued to the counsel for the original tenant for 6th of August, 1981, and the counsel for the applicant was told to be ready with the arguments in the main civil revision as also in the sue motu revision and it was ordered that the same be posed for rehearing for 6th August 1981. That is now the matter was fixed for today.

3. After hearing the parties, Civil Misc. application, filed by RaJ Kumar Kapoor is allowed in the interest of justice and he is ordered to be completed as a respondent in the revision petition. The counsel for Raj Kumar Kapoor was prepared with the arguments under orders of this Court dated 4th of August 1981 and after hearing him as well I am of the view that the revision as also the suo motu revision deserve to be allowed.

4. Ram Gopal Kalia filed an application for ejectment under section 13 of the Act against M/s Uttam Singh Inderjit Singh on 5th November, 1974 in the Court of Rent Controller, Amritsar, from a shop solely on the ground that the tenant had neither paid nor tendered the rent due from the tenant from 7th March, 1974, to 5th of November, 1974, and the rent was stated to be Rs. 225 per month vide rent note dated 30th of August, 1971, under which tenancy started on 7th of August, 1971. On the first date of hearing, which was on 19th of November, 1974, the tenant-firm paid Rs. 1,575/- as seven months rent from 1st of April 1974 to 31st of October, 1974, besides paying Rs