JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - Landlord Pritpal Singh Aujla has filed this revision petition under Section 18-A(8) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short, the Act) assailing order dated 22.11.2010 passed by learned Rent Controller, Amritsar, thereby dismissing ejectment petition filed by the landlord-petitioner under Section 13-B of the Act seeking ejectment of respondent-tenant M/s. Kiran Paints & Hardware Store from the demised shop. 2. Petitioner-landlord sought ejectment on the ground that he is Non Resident Indian and is owner-landlord of the demised shop and needs the same for his own business. 3. Respondent-tenant filed application for leave to contest the aforesaid ejectment petition, but Rent Controller vide separate order dated 22.11.2010 dismissed the said application of the tenant as time barred. Thereafter the ejectment petition itself was dismissed by the Rent Controller vide separate order dated 22.11.2010, which is under challenge in this revision petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 5. Counsel for the petitioner relying on Full Bench judgment of this Court in case of Anwar Ali versus Gian Kaur reported as, [2011(4) Law Herald (P&H) (FB) 3427]: 2011(2) RCR (Rent) 604, judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Prithipal Singh versus Satpal Singh (dead) through its LRs reported as 2010(1) RCR (Rent) 53 and Single Bench judgment of this Court in case of S. Sadhu Singh versus Col. Avnish Sharma & another reported as 2010(1) RCR (Rent) 12 contended that once tenant’s application for leave to contest the ejectment petition filed under Section 13-B of the Act is dismissed, eviction of the tenant has to be ordered as automatic consequence and, therefore, in the instant case, the ejectment petition could not be dismissed after dismissal of tenant’s application for leave to contest the ejectment petition. 6. On the other hand, counsel for respondent-tenant vehemently contended that the petitioner-landlord failed to make out the ingredients specified in Section 13-B of the Act to seek eviction of respondent-tenant under the said provision. 7. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Once leave to contest the ejectment petition filed under Section 13-B of the Act is denied to the tenant, nothing further is required to be probed or adjudicated upon by the Rent Controller and straightway ejectment petition filed under Section 13-B of the Act has to be accepted. 7. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Once leave to contest the ejectment petition filed under Section 13-B of the Act is denied to the tenant, nothing further is required to be probed or adjudicated upon by the Rent Controller and straightway ejectment petition filed under Section 13-B of the Act has to be accepted. Judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Anwar Ali (supra) categorically lays down this ratio of law. It has been held that once leave to contest the ejectment petition under Section 13-B of the Act is refused to the tenant, order of eviction is the automatic consequence. Similar ratio of law has been laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prithipal Singh (supra) while interpreting a similar provision of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Single Bench of this Court in the case of S. Sadhu Singh (supra) also held that in the absence of any application for leave to contest, the Rent Controller has no other option but to pass an order of eviction as mandated by Section 18-A of the Act. It is thus well settled that if no application for leave to contest is filed or if application for leave to contest is dismissed, then eviction petition filed under Section 13- A or 13-B of the Act has to be allowed and eviction order has to be passed. 8. Applying the aforesaid ratio of law to the facts of the instant case, tenant’s application for leave to contest the ejectment petition under Section 13-B of the Act was refused by the Rent Controller. Consequently eviction order had to follow automatically and the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to dismiss the ejectment petition. Impugned order of learned Rent Controller dismissing the ejectment petition is, therefore, patently perverse and illegal and suffers from jurisdictional error and is completely unsustainable. 9. Accordingly the instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned order of the Rent Controller is set aside. Ejectment petition filed by petitioner landlord under Section 13-B of the Act is allowed. Respondent-tenant is directed to vacate the demised shop and to handover its possession to the petitioner landlord immediately. ------------------