Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.

1. This petition is filed by the landlord against the order of both the Courts below, dismissing his petition filed under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") for eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal necessity. Both the Courts below have found that the landlord has failed to plead and prove the provisions of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act.

2. In the present revision petition, notice of motion was issued on 02.09.2013 and the following order was passed:--

"The petitioner-landlord has filed the instant petition for eviction of the respondent-tenant on various grounds including the ground of personal necessity. However, he has been non-suited by the Authorities below on the ground that the petitioner-landlord has failed to disclose the particulars of other properties occupied by him.

Counsel for the petitioner contended before this Court that in terms of Order 23 Rule 1(3) CPC, which are also applicable to rent proceedings in view of DB judgment of this Court in Mehtab Singh v. Tilak Raj Bhatia 1988(1) R.C.R (Rent) 159 : 1988(1) PLR 269, the petitioner be allowed to withdraw the eviction petition itself with liberty to file a fresh one after making compliance of the provisions of Section 13(i)(a)(b)(c) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. Learned counsel has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas 1980(1) R.C.R. (Rent) 304 : AIR 1980 SC 1218.

Notice of motion for 4.10.2013.

Dasti only."

3. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was a technical defect in the eviction petition and has prayed that he may be allowed to withdraw the petition decided by both the Courts below, with liberty to file it afresh on the same cause of action. It is submitted that the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the "CPC") are applicable to the rent proceedings as well, as decided by this Court in the case of Mehtab Singh Advocate v. Shri Tilak Raj Arora and another, 1988(1) PLR 269 and further relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas, 1980 AIR (SC) 1218.

4. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has submitted that the eviction petition filed by the landlord was dismissed on the ground that he has failed to plead and prove the ingredients of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act. It is also submitted by him that where both the authorities under the Act had decided the eviction petition against the landlord, the permission should not be granted to withdraw the eviction petition as it would destroy the finding of fact recorded by the Courts below in favour of the tenant. In support of his submission, he has relied upon a judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Asha Gupta v. Balbir Singh, 2000(2) CLJ (H.P.) 323 and a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of R. Rathinavel Chettiar and another v. V. Sivaraman and others, 1999(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 447 : (1999) 4 Supreme Court Cases 89.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

6. It is not disputed that the eviction petition filed by the petitioner-landlord was dismissed by the Rent Controller on 04.03.2009 by observing that "so the petition of the petitioner seeking the ejectment from the respondents-tenants on the ground of personal necessity and nuisance is barred by principle of res judicata". However, the finding of the Rent Controller that the eviction petition was barred by the principle of res judicata was reversed by the Appellate Authority by observing that "keeping in view these facts, the findings given by the Rent Controller that the present ejectment application is barred by the principles of res judicata is not justified and findings given by the Rent Controller on this issue are accordingly reversed". It is, however, also not in dispute that when the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document