RAJNI KUMAR Vs. SURESH KUMAR MALHOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave is granted.

(2.) In this appeal, from the Judgment and Order of the High Court of Delhi in C. R. No. 138 of 2001 dated October 15, 2001,the short point that arises for consideration is : Whether the High Court committed jurisdictional error in declining to set aside the ex parte decree on the application of the appellant under Rule 4 of Order 37, on the ground that he failed to disclose facts sufficient to entitle him to defend the suit.

(3.) The facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal may be noted here. The appellant-tenant had taken on rent residential flat No. C 470, Sarita Vihar, ground Floor, New Delhi- 110 004, from the respondent-landlord for a period of nine months under an agreement of lease reduced to writing on November 26, 1993. After the expiry of the term of tenancy she continued to occupy the said premises as tenant till January 11, 1997. Alleging that the appellant did not pay the electricity and water consumption charges for the period starting from November 26, 1993 to January 11, 1997, the respondent filed Suit No. 597 of 1997 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Delhi, under Order 37 of Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.), for recovery of Rs. 33,661. On the ground that on April 21, 1999 summons for judgment was sent by registered post A. D. to the appellant pursuant to the order of the Court dated April 16, 1999 the Court drew inference of deemed service on him, proceeded with the case and decreed the suit ex parte on August 12, 1999. The appellant, however, filed application under Rule 4 of Order 37, C. P. C. in the trial Court to set aside the ex parte decree. On January 6, 2001, the application was dismissed as no special circumstances were stated in the petition both in regard to there being illegality in deeming service of summons for judgment on the appellant as well facts sufficient to entitled him to defend the suit. Aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, the appellant filed revision C. R. No. 138 of 2001 in the High Court, which was also dismissed on October 15, 2001. That order of the High Court is assailed in appeal before us.