CHUNI LAL Vs. VED PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This particular appeal has a chequered history. By special leave, granted by this court the appeal was admitted in 1971. It was called out for hearing on 14/08/1973. The court proceedings show that on that day Mr Man Mohan Nath, Advocate on record was not present and the court dismissed the appeal for default. It appears that subsequently, the appellant filed C. M. P. No. 7810 of 1973 for restoration of appeal to file and by an order dated 19/09/1973, his request was granted and the appeal was restored to file. Since then nearly 11 year" have rolled by. The appeal was called out today but Mr Man Mohan Nath, Advocate on record was not present. We resolved not to undertake the futile exercise of dis- missing the appeal for default and wait for application for restoration.

(2.) In order to acquaint ourselves about the facts of the case, we requested Mr T. S. Arora, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent to tell us the fact, acquaint us with the evidence and the finding. Mr Arora pointed out that the appellant is a landlord and he sought eviction inter alia on the ground that the deceased respondent was allotted government premises as he was a government servant and therefore landlord is entitled to recover possession of the demised premises. Mr Arora pointed out that this was the allegation in 1956. Nearly 28 years have rolled by since then. The most unfortunateevent of which we must take note is that the respondent tenant is dead and therefore the allotment of premises to the deceased tenant as government servant would have hardly any impact on the outcome of this appeal. Learned Single Judge of the High court who reversed the finding of the Rent Control tribunal has observed that "looking at the case from all the aspects and finding that the judgment under appeal sustains eviction only on the basis of the provisions of clause (h) of the proviso to Ss. (1) of S. 14 of the Act" he disagreed with the view taken by the Rent Controller and Rent Control tribunal and accepted the appeal of the deceased tenant and set aside the decree for eviction. We are in full agreement with this observation. Therefore, this appeal fails and is dismissed but with no orders as to costs.