M.V. THIPPESWAMY Vs. SHRI V.R. JAMPURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner -landlord has filed the present petition calling in question the validity and correctness of the order dated 23.2.2001 passed in Miscellaneous No. 51 of 1997 on the file of the Chief Judge of Small Causes, Bangalore allowing the miscellaneous petition filed for recalling the order placing the Petitioner -tenant ex -parte.

(2.) THE facts relevant for the disposal of the petition, briefly stated, are as follows: The Petitioner -landlord filed H.R.C. 649 of 1996 for eviction of the Respondent -tenant under Section 21(1)(h) and (p) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. Notice to Respondent was ordered on 18.4.1996 through Court only. Notice was not ordered to be issued through registered post. The summons was issued by the Court on 19.4.1996 fixing the date of hearing as 24.6.1996. The process server while allegedly serving the summons on 29.5.1996 made the following endorsement. KANNADA MATTER The above endorsement is attested by two witnesses viz. S.J. Ramesh and K.S.M. Jois. S.J. Ramesh is a resident of 4th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore and Sri K.S.M. Jois is a resident of C.R. Layout, J.P. Nagar I phase, Bangalore. The process was returned by the process server to the Court with a affidavit sworn to before the Sheristedar of City Civil Court, Bangalore on 1.6.1996. The affidavit reads: KANNADA The case was called out on 24.6.1996 at 11.30 a.m. The Respondent -tenant was absent. The report of the process server was perused by the Court. Noting the refusal on the part of the Respondent -tenant the Court made an order treating the service as sufficient and placed the Respondent -tenant ex -parte. The Court after hearing the Petitioner -landlord passed an order on 24.10.1996 allowing the petition filed under Section 21(1)(h) of the Act but dismissed the petition filed under Section 21 (1)(p) of the Act. The landlord filed the execution petition in Ex. Case No. 181 of 1997. The order was executed on 7.2.1997. The Respondent -tenant filed Miscellaneous Petition No. 51 of 1997 on 12.2.1997 for setting aside the ex -parte decree dated 24.10.1996 in H.R.C. No. 649 of 1996. The Petitioner submitted in the Miscellaneous Petition that the Respondent -tenant was not aware of any proceedings against him and that no notice was served on him by any one. It was alleged that the notice was fradulently suppressed by the process server for reasons best known to him. The Respondent -tenant also took exception to the case being filed naming United Enterprises as the Respondent when he in his personal capacity was the tenant of the premises. It was also mentioned in the petition that even the show -cause notice was not served on him in the execution proceedings.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel on both sides.