Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sh.Manish Kumar vs Sh.Mohan Singh And Others on 21 December, 2012
Author: Jaswant Singh
Bench: Jaswant Singh
CR 7636/2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR 7636/2012
Date of decision:21/12/2012
Sh.Manish Kumar
.............petitioner.
v.
Sh.Mohan Singh and others
.............Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present:- Gaurav Tangri,Advocate for the petitioner.
Jaswant Singh,J(Oral).
Petitioners(tenant) is in revision under Article 227 of the Constitution for setting aside the order dated 15.9.2012 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, whereby in a rent petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act,1949 filed by respondent/landlord, defence of the petitioner has been ordered to be struck off for not filing the written statement within stipulated time of 90 days.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned order.
Though in the opinion of this Court, the impugned order cannot be said to be illegal, however, for the reasons mentioned in the revision petition for non-filing of the written statement, in my opinion, delay in non-filing of the written statement cannot be said to be mala fide or intentional and thus in the opinion of this Court, CR 7636/2012 2 petitioner/tenant deserves one opportunity to file his written statement, since it is settled law that rules of procedure are hand maid of justice meant to advance the cause rather than subverting the dispensation of justice.
In view of the above, I deem it expedient in the interest of justice to set aside the impugned order dated 15.9.2012 and grant the petitioner/tenant one opportunity to file written statement on or before the next date subject to payment of Rs.3000/- as costs to be paid to respondent/landlord by way of demand draft and further costs of Rs.2000/- to be deposited with the Distt.Legal Service Authority, Chandigarh.
This order is being passed without issuing notice to the respondent/landlord to avoid delay and litigation expenditure on his part. Moreover, the respondent has already been compensated by way of payment of costs.
Disposed of.
21.12.2012. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge