SHRI JOHRI MAL DHOBI Vs. SHRI K. NARENDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act is directed against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, setting aside the order of the Rent Controller.

(2.) The respondent-landlord made an application for ejectment of the appellant-tenant under clauses (a)(i) and (k) of the proviso to Sec. 14(l) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The tenant appeared and filed his written statement after a number of hearings. However, the landlord failed to appear on 22nd Sept., 1964, the date fixed for recording the remaining evidence of the landlord. The ejectment application was, therefore, dismissed. An application for restoration of the case was, however, made by the landlord on the same day and notice of the same was directed to be issued for 28th Sept., 1964. When the notice was given to Shri Grover, Advocate of the tenant he refused to accept service saying that his client be informed, This happened on 26th Sept. 1964. On 28th Sept., 1964 none appeared for the tenant and the Rent Controller restored the case and adjourned it for the evidence of the landlord for 19th Oct., 1964. On that day the tenant again was absent and after recording evidence of the landlord ex-parte order of eviction was passed. After about five months, the tenant made an application for setting aside the ex parte order of eviction. It was stated that for the first time be came to know about the order when the bailiff came with the warrant of possession on 23rd March, 1965, He made the application under Order 9 Rule 13 Code of Civil Procedure about a week after his alleged knowledge. It was also claimed by him that the application was within the period of limitation because he had no notice about the order before 23rd March, 1965.

(3.) The Rent Controller accepted this application and set aside the ex-parte order of eviction. On appeal the Tribunal held that the service of the notice of the application made by the landlord on the Advocate of the tenant was a proper service and so the application under Order 9 Rule 13 Code of Civil Procedure was not only time barred but was without any sufficient cause justifying the non-appearance of the parties or his counsel on the date fixed and later hearings. He thus set aside the order of the Rent Controller and dismissed the application made by the tenant.