LAWS(SC)-1981-9-28

BEGUM PARA NASIR KHAN Vs. LUIZA MATILDA FERNANDES

Decided On September 14, 1981
Begum Para Nasir Khan Appellant
V/S
Luiza Matilda Fernandes Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a matter in which the appellants have been evicted from the premises in which they were staying, under a decree which on the face of it is an ex parte decree.

(2.) Husband of the first appellant was the tenant of the premises and unfortunately he died on May 3, 1974 at Amritsar. According to the appellants, widow and minor children of the deceased tenant left for Karachi on February 1, 1975. The suit was filed against the appellants on February 2, 1975 for recovery of arrears of rent and possession. When the suit was filed the only ground on which eviction was sought was that the appellants were in arrears of rent for a period of six months or more and there being no dispute about the standard rent of the premises in view of the provision contained in Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging House Rates Control Act No. LVII of 1947 (Rent Act for short) decree for eviction must follow as a matter of course. The writ of summons of the suit after an attempt at service was returned with an endorsement left. It is said that service was effected by sticking a copy of the writ of summons on the premises the subject matter of the suit. Subsequently plaintiff respondent sought an amendment of plaint impleading defendant No. 6. While impleading defendant No. 6 as a defendant to the suit, an amendment to the plaint was sought by which two more grounds for eviction were added. Briefly they were as under:

(3.) A further attempt to have the writ of summons with a copy of the amended plaint annexed served to the appellants met with the same result, and the same methodology was followed. The suit ultimately ended in an ex parte decree in favour of original plaintiffs. When the appellants came to know of the ex parte decree, they returned to India and moved an application for setting aside the ex parte decree. An appeal against the ex parte decree was preferred but the same failed. The High Court declined to interfere in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitutions. Hence this appeal by special leave.