RANJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2399-2401/2023 : The appellants are the defendants in a suit filed by the first respondent and one Shanti Devi, who is no more and has been shown as the third respondent in these Appeals. For convenience, we are referring to the parties with reference to their status in the suit. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The suit was filed on 8/11/2001 for possession of the property, more particularly described in the schedule (suit property). The allegation in the suit is that the first defendant, the State of Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand), was a tenant of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit property at a monthly rent of Rs.86,232.00 (Rupees Eighty-six Thousand Two Hundred and Thirtytwo), which was fixed by an order dtd. 18/5/1999 passed by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Dehradun. The allegation is that though the rent was fixed with effect from 1/9/1993, the first defendant did not pay the rent. Therefore, the plaintiffs issued a notice of termination of tenancy under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. As the defendants failed to comply with the said notice, the suit for eviction was filed.

(3.) It appears from the record of the Trial Court that after the service of summons on the defendants, they appeared and applied for adjournments for filing the written statement. The first such application was made on 13/12/2001. Subsequent applications were made for adjournments. On 22/4/2002, the learned trial Judge did not accede to the prayer for grant of further time and passed an order that the suit would proceed ex parte and a date for ex parte hearing, i.e., 30/5/2002, was fixed. At this stage, we may also note that the plaintiffs also made an application to strike out the defence of the defendants.