Mr. Augustine George Masih, J.: (Oral) - CM No.14486-CII of 2014

Exemption is granted from filing certified copies of Annexures P-1 to P-5 and the same are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

Application stands disposed of.

CM No.14488-CII of 2014

Prayer in this application is for condonation of delay of 9 days in filing the revision petition.

The reason as given in the application for delay is that after passing of the impugned order dated 31.03.2014, certified copy of the same was applied on 01.04.2014, which was delivered on 25.04.2014. Thereafter, the counsel was consulted as to whether the revision petition should be filed or not? Thereafter, it was finally decided that the revision petition indeed was to be filed and accordingly, was filed, which has resulted in the delay of 9 days in filing the present revision petition.

Counsel for the applicant-petitioner states that the delay is not intentionally nor deliberately, rather bona fide and therefore, the present application may be allowed.

Counsel for the non-applicant-respondents, on the other hand, states that the delay in filing the revision petition is not bona fide and it is with an intention to delay the proceedings before the trial Court.

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the delay of 9 days in filing the revision petition was bona fide and it has been explained fully.

In view of the above, the present application is allowed which is duly supported by the affidavit of the applicant-petitioner. Delay of 9 days in filing the revision petition stands condoned.

CR No.4795 of 2014

Notice of motion.

2. Mr. Harsh Bunger, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

3. A petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1949 Act’), was filed by the respondent-landlords against the petitioner-tenant. In the said petition, leave to contest the petition was granted. A written statement was filed by the petitioner-tenant, in which, apart from the other objections, an objection was taken that the address of the property in question and that of the petitioner therein is totally wrong. The documents attached alongwith the petition do not pertain to the property in question which renders the present petition liable to be dismissed. These objections were being sought to be taken care of, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (For short ‘the CPC’) for amendment of the petition was filed by the respondent-landlords.

4. During the pendency of the said application, an application under Order 23 Rule 1 (3) of the CPC was filed praying for permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a fresh one as there was certain technical defects which have crept in inadvertently, because of mixing up the cases of five petitions which were filed on the same day, which cannot be cured by way of amendment. The reply to the said application was filed by the petitioner-tenant, wherein, the said plea was opposed on various grounds, out of which, one was that no material defects have been mentioned in the application giving the facts therein which would render the application liable to be dismissed without discloser thereof. An objection was also taken that an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment of the petition was pending and the objections as have been taken in the written statement are being taken care of by way of the said amendment application. A plea was taken by the respondent-landlords that the technical defects cannot be removed or cured even if the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC is allowed.

5. Learned Rent Controller proceeded to decide the said application vide order dated 31.03.2014, where, it has referred to the grounds taken in the objections that the petition is suffering from many defects which even could not be removed by filing an application f