Full Judgment
L.N. Mittal, J.
Oral:
Tenant Mathura Dass has filed this revision petition under section 15(5) of the of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short, the Act), assailing order dated 13.9.2011 passed by learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana thereby striking off the defence of the tenant-petitioner due to non-filing of written statement in ejectment petition which has been instituted by respondent landlord Ashok Kumar against petitioner tenant under section 13 of the Act.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.
Counsel for the petitioner prayed that only one more opportunity be granted to the petitioner -tenant to file his written statement before the Rent Controller. It was pleaded that respondent is an old person and could not file his written statement due to communication gap between petitioner and his counsel.
I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention but the same cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. The courts are liberal in such matters but there has to be some limit even to liberal approach. The tenant petitioner cannot be given a free hand to delay the disposal of the ejectment petition. The sole aim of the petitioner - tenant appears to be to delay the disposal of the ejectment petition. In this regard, proceedings before the Rent Controller as reproduced in the revision petition may be noticed. The tenant appeared through counsel before Rent Controller on 6.10.2010 and the case was adjourned to 12.11.2010 for filing of written statement. However, on 12.11.2010, instead of filing written statement, the tenant moved application under Order 11 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure for directing the landlord to produce sale deed/document of title of the demised property. Landlord filed reply to the said application. However, on 3.3.2011, the said application was not pressed by counsel for the tenant and the case was adjourned for filing written statement. Inspite of availing several opportunities for filing written statement even thereafter, the tenant failed to file written statement till 13.9.2011, the date of impugned order. In these circumstances, learned Rent Controller was left with no option but to strike off the defence of the tenant for non-filing of the written statement. No fault can be found with the said order. The tenant has to blame for himself for the situation in which he finds himself. He did not file written statement for more than 11 months after putting in appearance before the learned Rent Controller.
The conduct of the tenant in delaying disposal of the ejectment petition does not end here. Even the instant revision petition was not filed with promptness after passing of the impugned order. It has been filed only on 30.5.2012 i.e. more than 8 months after the passing of the impugned order. There is no explanation for this long delay except the malafide intention of the tenant to delay disposal of the ejectment petition.
In the aforesaid circumstances, I find no merit in this revision petition. Impugned order of learned Rent Controller does not suffer from any perversity, illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.