PURAN SINGH Vs. V S AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Consti- tution of India is filed against the order of Additional Rent Controller dated 15th November, 1972 whereby the eviction petition filed by the original respon- dents 2 to 6 was allowed. During the pendency of this petition, Shri Rajinder Kumar and Shri Jitender Kumar, respondents 4 and 5 died. Their legal repre- sentative have been brought on record.

(2.) The main contention of the petitioner in the petition is that the impugned order was passed ex-parte by the Addl. Rent Controller, though fresh notice was required to be given to the petitioner. It is submitted that notice wasservedonthepetitionerfor appearance on 6.11.72 which was declared a holiday. The case was however listed before the Court on the next working dav ie., on 7th November 1972 and on that day, the Additional Rent ConTrolkr passed an order proceeding ex-parte against fhe petitioner and listed the case for further proceedings on 15th November, 1972 on which date the impugned order was passed. Learned counsel for the respondents) submitted that wider Rule 4 of Chapter I-K of the Rules and Orders of the Punjab High Court, Vol I on the occurence of an unanticipated holiday or in the event of the Presiding Officer of a Court being absent owing to sudden illness or other unexpected caus^ all cases fixed for the day in question shall be deemed to have been automate oally adjourned to the next working day when the Presiding Officer is preseat and it is the duty of the parties and their counsel to attend Court on th^t date. Therefore, the case was rightly listed on the next working day, i.e., 7.11.72. The petitioner failed to appear before the Court on 7.11.72 and therefore, the Additional Rent Controller proceeded ex-parte against him and listed the petition for 15th November, 1972 for ex-parte evidence.

(3.) I find that the petitioner did not take any steps to get the order of the court dated 7.11,72 set aside or varied and not only he did not appear before the Court on 7.11.72, but also on 15.11.72. It is only after notice in the execution proceedings was served on the petitioner that he engaged an Advocate and thereafter filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Rent Controller declined to grant stay. Therefore, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Rent Controller Tribunal under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act which was dismissed on the ground of maintainability.