The Rent Control Legislation is a complete Code in itself, and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are not attracted. The ground of bona fide requirement or non-payment of rent is a recurring cause, and the landlord is not precluded from instituting fresh proceedings.

Viney Mittal, J.

1. The landlords are the petitioners before this Court. They filed an ejectment petition on March 17, 2001 seeking ejectment of the tenant. The ejectment was sought on the ground of personal necessity of the landlords. The ejectment was also sought on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent. The claim of the landlords was contested by the tenant. The grounds of ejectment were contested. It was further claimed that the landlords had earlier filed a petition on October 9, 1995 seeking ejectment of the tenant and in the aforesaid petition also one of the grounds for ejectment was the personal necessity of the landlords. The said petition was dismissed on August 4, 1999 and therefore, the present petition was not maintainable. The Rent Controller while deciding issue No. 1 held that although the ejectment was also sought on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent but the arrears of rent were paid by the tenant on the first date of hearing, therefore, the aforesaid tender was valid. On that basis, the only ground which survived thereafter was the ground of personal necessity.

2. The learned Rent Controller found it as a fact that the ground of personal necessity was duly proved by the landlords. However, the learned Rent Controller while upholding the objection raised by the tenant with regard to maintainability of the petition held that since the earlier petition filed by the landlords had been dismissed in default on August 4, 1999, therefore, the present petition filed by them was not maintainable. Accordingly, vide order dated February 4, 2003, the ejectment petition filed by the landlords was dismissed. An appeal filed by the landlords was also dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority. The learned Appellate Authority also affirmed the findings of the learned Rent Controller with regard to the personal necessity of the landlords but again on the basis of the provisions of Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure held that the ejectment petition filed by the landlords was not maintainable. Consequently, the appeal filed by the landlords was also dismissed. The landlords have now approached this Court through the present revision petition.

3. I have heard Shri Pritam Saini, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and have also gone through the record of the case. No one has put in appearance on the behalf of the respondent, despite service.

4. The facts are not in dispute. It is not in dispute that on October 9, 1995, in the earlier petition filed by the landlords, besides the other grounds, the ejectment of the tenant was sought on the ground of personal necessity as well. On August 4, 1999, the following order was passed by the Rent Controller in the earlier proceedings:

Present: Counsel for the parties. Counsel for petitioner Shri D.P. Jhangra has made a statement that he has no instructions to appear in this case on behalf of applicant/petitioner. Petitioner is not present. In view of the statement of the counsel for the petitioner and non-appearance of the petitioner, the case is dismissed in default. File be consigned to the record room. Sd/- Dated 4.8.1999 Rent Controller, Nawanshahr.

5. From the aforesaid perusal of the order it is apparent that the learned Rent Controller in the earlier proceedings had not decided the controversy on merits. At this stage, Section 14 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 may be relevant to be noticed, section 14 reads as under:

Decisions which have become final not be reopened in appeal.- The Controller shall summarily reject any application under Sub-section (2) or under Sub-section (3) of Section 13 which raises substantially the issues as have been finally decided in a former proceedings under this Act.

6. From the perusal of the provisions of Section 14 of the Act, it is apparent that the Rent Controller can summarily reject any application for ejectment filed under Section 13 which raises substantially the issues as had bee