HEM WATI Vs. RAJ BAHADUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the order dated 17-11-1976 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal whereby the review petition filed against the dismissal order of the appeal by the appellant was also dismissed.

(2.) . The appellant had obtained an eviction order against the tenant in 1968. In execution one Raj Bahadur and another objector filed their objection petitions claiming to be lawful tenants in their own rights. The objections of the other objector were dismissed but objections of Raj Bahadur prevailed. Against that order, the landlord filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal. In appeal the original tenant who was also a party was not served. In spite of two orders for filing process fee, the same was not filed and even at the third occasion, it was filed late. Consequently the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. The appellant filed a petition for review which was also dismissed on the same ground. It was urged in the review petition that the appellant had suffered an heart attack and was confined to the hospital and as such she could not pursue the appeal. The Rent Control Tribunal rejected this submission on the ground that no medical certificate was filed.

(3.) . It is true that there has been negligence on the part of the appellant, I would not say that the negligence is necessarily of the appellant as it seems to be a clear case of negligence of the counsel for the appellant. The counsel for the appellant should have filed a process fee because it is well known that process fee is collected at the initial stage from the litigant. In any case process fee of Rs. 1.50 could be deposited even without collecting it at that stage, because the appellant had to do nothing except paying the amount of Rs. 1.50. This is a glaring case of negligence on the part of the counsel and such a case should ordinarily be taken note of by the Bar counsel. Considering the fact that I have come to the conclusion that the negligence was of the counsel, in the interest of justice. I allow this appeal and set aside the orders dated 17-11-1976 as also of 2-3-1976. The case will go back to the Rent Control Tribunal who will proceed on merits afterserving the legal heirs of the original tenant namely Madan Lal who has since died. The parties are directed to appear before the Rent Control Tribunal on 13the January, 1987. The record be sent back forthwith to the Rent Control Tribunal.