Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.:-

1. Challenge in this revision petition is to order dated 07.03.2011 of the Rent Controller, whereby application of the petitioner-tenant under Section13A(4) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as the Haryana Act) seeking leave to defend the petition filed by respondent-tenant under Section 13A(1A) of the Haryana Act, was dismissed and the petition of the landlord was accepted. It is claimed that neither the Rent Controller followed the procedure ordained for deciding petition under Section 13A of the Haryana Act nor took into account the facts pleaded by the petitioner-tenant in his application, whereby leave to defend the ejectment petition against him, had been sought. It is elaborated that neither the summons had been issued to the tenant in the prescribed form under the Act nor position of a co-owner was rightly interpreted by the Rent Controller. It is averred that mere owner of the property would not be deemed to be a landlord under the Act in absence of existence of relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties. Canvassing that the revisionist-tenant had not been inducted by respondent No. 1 (the petitioner herein) it is claimed that even otherwise he was holding only a meagre share in the property, and thus could not seek ejectment of the tenant.

2. In addition, it is claimed that building is nonresidential one, whereas, provisions of Section 13A and 13(3)(a)(i) are confined to residential premises. It is averred that ground on which the eviction is being sought being available only under Section 13(3)(a)(i) such relief would not be available under Section 13A of the Haryana Act.

3. It is further averred by the tenant respondent No. 1 that misuser and abuse of the provisions of Section 13A of the Haryana Act by a landlord cannot be permitted to take advantage of the same by him in the capacity of a 'specified landlord'. It is further claimed that since respondent No. 1 has already got vacant possession of two shops on account of personal necessity, the present application for seeking ejectment of the revisionist tenant from the shop in dispute is merely a clever device to get the premises vacated whereas in fact there is no personal necessity much less bonafide one.

4. It is further pleaded in the petition that the Rent Controller had failed to consider that statutory requirements of Section 13(3)(a)(i) requiring the landlord to plead the basic ingredients that he was not occupying any other residential building in the concerned area and had not vacated any such building was to be complied with even qua petition under Section 13A of the Haryana Act. It is further canvassed that the landlord failed to take a note that respondent No. 1 was already in possession of sufficient commercial property and thus was not having any bonafide need. It is, thus, claimed that denial of leave to defend by the Rent Controller and consequent grant of the petition under Section 13 A of the Haryana Act has caused great prejudice to the revisionist-tenant who could not get an opportunity to cross-examine the landlord qua vital aspects pertaining to compliance of provisions of Section 13-A as also of Section 2(hh) of the Haryana Act. Seeking reversal of the impugned order, leave to defend the ejectment petition has been sought.

5. Counsel for the contesting respondents, in repudiation of the claim of the revisionist-tenant has urged that sole purpose of the tenant was to delay and dilate the matter so as to frustrate early decision of the petition of the respondent-landlord even though it was preferred under special provisions of Section 13-A of the Haryana Act. It is claimed that neither relationship of landlord and tenant is in dispute nor there is any case of non compliance of the provisions of Section 13(3)(a)(i) and Section 13-A of the Haryana Act.

6. It is urged that all the pleas were legal and were considered by the Rent Controller. It is contended that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document