Permod Kohli, J. — This Revision is directed against the order dated 4.8.2007 passed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, dismissing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing application for leave to contest the Eviction Petition and consequently the application for leave to contest.

2. Respondent filed an application for eviction of the petitioner herein from the demised premises under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Notice of the application was issued in the prescribed form asking the petitioner/tenant to appear before the Rent Controller within 15 days of the date of service of notice and to obtain leave to contest the petition. Tenant was served with the summons of Eviction Petition on 19.5.2005 15 days period for filing application expired on 3.6.2005 Application for leave to defend was preferred on 4.6.2005 It was not accompanied with any application for condonation of delay. Thereafter an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act came to be filed seeking condonation of delay of one day in filing the application for leave to defend. Learned Rent Controller vide the impugned order has dismissed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and consequently application for leave to defend the Eviction Petition. The Rent Controller relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in the case of Babu Ram v. Naresh Kumar, 2006 (3) RCR (Civil) 789 : 2006 (2) RCR (Rent) 249 (P&H) as also a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar Gupta… v. Shri Siri Pal Jain…., 1998 (2) RCR (Rent) 222 (P&H) : 1998 (2) RLR 263 wherein it has been laid down that provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act are not applicable in proceedings before the Rent Controller, particularly, for condoning delay in filing application for leave to contest the Eviction Petition. Based upon the ratio of the aforesaid judgment, application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and consequently application for leave to contest have been dismissed.

3. Mr. Gurcharan Dass, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the order impugned is in violation of provisions of Section 18-A(7) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act as also Section 17 of The Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882.

It is contended that by virtue of Sub Section (7) of Section 18-A of the Act, the procedure prescribed for trial of suit under Small Causes Courts Act is applicable for trial of eviction petition and by virtue of Section 17 of the Small Causes Courts Act, Code of a Civil Procedure is made applicable, hence it was obligatory upon the Rent Controller to a have considered the merits of the Eviction Petition and directed the landlord to lead evidence to prove the grounds of eviction. According to the learned counsel, mere rejection of application for leave to contest does not ipso facto entitle the landlord to seek an order of eviction. According to him, the Rent Controller should have recorded the evidence of the landlord/petitioner and it is only after the evidence is recorded, and the Rent Controller is satisfied regarding existence of grounds of eviction of the tenant under Section 13-B of the Act that the order for eviction could be passed.

4. It may be useful to examine the Scheme/procedure incorporated under Section 18-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act which is reproduced as under :

“18-A. Special Procedure for disposal of application under Section 13-A or Section 13-B) - (1) Every application under (Section 13-A or Section 13-B) shall be dealt with in accordance with the procedure specified in this section.

(2) After an application under Section 13-A or 13-B is received, the Controller shall issue summons for service on the tenant in the form specified in Schedule II.

(3) (a) the summons issued under sub-section (2) shall be served on the tenant as far as may be in accordance with the provisions of Order V of the First Schedule of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Controller shall in addition direct that a copy of the summons be also simultaneous by registered sent post acknowledgment due addressed to the tenant or his agent empowered to accept the service at the place where the tenant or his agent actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain and that another copy of the summons be affixed at some conspicuous part of the building in respect whereof the application under (Section 13-A or Section 13-B has been made.

(b) When an acknowledgment purporting to be signed by the tenant or his agent is received by the Controller, or the registered article containing the summons is received back with an endorsement purporting to have been made by a postal employee to the effect that the tenant or his agent has refused to take delivery of the registered article and an endorsement is made by a process server to the effect that a copy of the summons has been affixed as directed by the Controller on a conspicuous part of building and the Controller after such enquiry as he deems fit, is satisfied about the correctness of the endorsement, he may declare that there has been a valid service of the summons on the tenant.

(4) The tenant on whom the service of summons has been declared to have been validly made under sub-section (3), shall have no right to contest the prayer for eviction from the (residential building or scheduled building and/or non-residential building), as the case may be unless he files an affidavit stating the grounds on which he seeks to contest the application for eviction and obtains leave from the Controller as hereinafter provided, and in default of his appearance in pursuance of the summons or his obtaining such leave, the statement made by the specified landlord, or as the case may be, the widow, widower, child, grandchild or the widowed daughter-in-law of such specified landlord (or the owner, who is a non-resident Indian) in the application for eviction shall be deemed to be admitted by the tenant and the applicant shall be entitled to an order for eviction of the tenant.

(5) The Controller may give to the tenant leave to contest the application if the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such facts as would disentitle the specified landlord, or as the case may be, the widow, widower, child, grand-child or widowed daughter-in-law of such specified landlord (or the owner, who is a nonresident Indian) from obtaining an order for the recovery of possession of the (residential building or scheduled building and/or non-residential building), as the case may be, under (Section 13-A or Section 13- B).

(6) Where leave is granted to the tenant to contest the application, the Controller shall commence the hearing on a date not later than one month from the date on which the leave granted to the tenant to contest and shall hear the application from day-to-day till the hearing is concluded and application decided.

(7) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Controller shall while holding an inquiry in a proceeding to which this Section applies including the recording of evidence, follow the practice and procedure of a Court of Small Causes.

(8) No appeal or second appeal shall lie against an order for the recovery of possession of any (residential building or scheduled building and/or non-residential building, as the case may be), made by the Controller in accordance with the procedure specified in this Section. Provided that the High Court may, for the purpose of satisfying itself that an order made by the Controller under this Section is according to law, call for the records of the case and pass such order in respect thereto as it thinks fit.

(9) Save as otherwise provided in this Section, the procedure for the disposal of an application for eviction under (Section 13-A or Section 13-B) shall be the same as the procedure for the disposal of application by the Controller.

5. Sub-section (1) of Section 18-A of the Act requires the petition filed under Section 13-A or 13-B to be tried in accordance with the procedure specified in the Section. Sub Section (2) requires summons to be served in the specified form. Whereas sub-section (3) deals with the mode of service of summons. Sub Section (4) creates an embargo on the right of the tenant against whom eviction is sought in terms of Section 13-A and 13 -B of the Act from contesting the eviction except with the leave of the Controller. It is clearly indicated in the Section that where the tenant defaults in his appearance in pursuance to the summons or obtaining leave, the statement made by the landlord/owner in the application for eviction shall be deemed to be admitted by the tenant and the applicant shall be entitled for order of eviction. Subsection (5) empowers the Controller to grant leave to contest the eviction application for the reasons to be considered by the Controller which appear to disentitle the specified landlord from seeking possession. Sub-section (6) deals with the stage after the leave is granted whereas Sub-section (7) prescribes the procedure for recording evidence and require to follow the practice and procedure of a Court of Small Causes. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner requires to be considered in the light of the provisions of Section 18-A of the Act. Main contention of the petitioner is that notwithstanding the fact that no leave is granted, the Controller is required to frame issues and try the petition by adopting the procedure as prescribed under Section 17 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882. The obligation of the Controller to apply this procedure for trial of the eviction petition commences once the leave to contest the petition is granted by the Controller under Sub-section (5) of Section 18-A of the Act. However, where the tenant defaults in approaching the Court within the time specified or fails to obtain leave to contest, the procedure prescribed under sub-sections (6) and (7) of the Act will have no application. Where the leave is not sought or not granted, sub-section (4) will apply and the averments made in the application for eviction shall be deemed to be admitted by the tenant and such deemed admission is sufficient to order eviction of the tenant. Argument of learned counsel is based upon total misconception and misinterpretation of the provisions of Section 18-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. It is no more res Integra that Section 18-A of the Act contains a special procedure for trial of the eviction petition filed under Sections 13-A and 13-B of the Act and by virtue of Section 18-B of the Act. Provisions of Section 18-A of the Act have over-riding effect on all other laws inconsistent therewith. Therefore, I have no doubt in mind that sub-section (7) of Section 18-A of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act and Section 17 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 are not attracted at all under the facts and circumstances of the present case or in a situation where the leave to contest has not been sought or/and such leave is declined for any reason whatsoever. Under these circumstances, there was no statutory obligation upon the Controller to have framed issues and try the eviction petition by allowing the petitioner to lead evidence. Refusal to grant leave to contest amounts to admission of the contents of the Eviction Petition and if the Eviction Petition itself specifies the requirements of Section 13-B, eviction order is imperative. The Rent Controller has rightly passed an eviction order. I find no merit in this Revision which is accordingly dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Section 17 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882.(Section 13-A or Section 13-B)(Section 13-A or Section 13-B)