The court emphasized the necessity for the Rent Controller to grant tenants the right to contest eviction applications as per statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

The petitioner herein is a tenant. His application for permission to grant leave to contest the eviction petition filed against him by the landlord has been dismissed. This revision petition has been filed to assail the correctness of the aforesaid order.

2. It has been asserted by the petitioner (tenant) that the landlady is the owner of 11 shops located in the Malhotra Market, Chaura Bazar, Ludhiana, out of which 6 shops are lying vacant. It has also been stated that the landlady is the owner of shops located in the Gandhi Market Chaura Bazar, Ludhiana and she is in occupation of 9 shops in that building. Apart from that, she is also the owner of the property located in Iqbal Ganj Chowk which consists of several shops. Apart therefrom, she is also the owner of property located at Maharani Jhansi Road, Near State Bank of India, Ludhiana.

3. While filing the reply, the landlady stated that the Malhotra Market is, in fact, an old dilapidated building, however, certain shops are in occupation of the tenants. Similar is the reply with regard to the property located in Gandhi Market. With regard to the property located in Iqbal Ganj Chowk, she claims that she is the only owner of 1/3rd share. The Rent Controller has refused to grant leave to contest on the ground that it is the prerogative of the landlady to seek eviction of the property which is suitable to her.

4. This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paper book.

5. The learned counsel representing the petitioner while reiterating the facts, which have already been noticed, submits that the Rent Controller has erred in refusing to grant leave to contest. He submits that the landlady is in occupation of more than 10 shops in the same building and she is required to prove by leading evidence that such building is not fit for occupation, particularly when some shops in the same building are in the occupation of the tenants.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the respondent-landlady submits that as per Section 13B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1949 Act'), the owner is entitled to immediate possession of the building and the tenant has no right to dictate the terms.

7. At this stage, the court is required to decide "Whether the tenant has disclosed facts which entitle him to leave the contest or not?"

8. Section 18A of the 1949 Act, enables the tenant to file the affidavit disclosing facts/grounds which would entitle him to seek leave to contest the eviction application.

9. In these circumstances, the Rent Controller was required to apply her mind to the facts disclosed by the tenant in his affidavit. It was not appropriate for the Rent Controller to ignore the facts disclosed in the petition in order to bulldoze the tenant's rights to seek leave to contest.

10. Once the statute itself recognizes the tenant's right to seek leave to contest, the same is required to be adjudicated after maintaining a delicate balance between the rights of both the parties.

11. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the order passed by the Rent Controller is set aside. The application filed by the tenant for leave to contest is allowed.

12. The rent petition was filed in the year 2013. Approximately, 10 years period has elapsed since then. Hence, the Rent Controller is requested to make sincere endeavours for the expeditious disposal of the rent petition and conclude the same preferably within a period of one year and six months, from today.

13. The parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the court of Rent Controller, on 06.10.2023