SHEELA DEVI Vs. SHITAL PARSHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGMENT

(2.) THE present appeal is directed against the order of the First Appellate Court, i.e., the Rent Control Tribunal dated 24.8.1985 setting aside the Additional Rent Controller's order rejecting the application of the appellant under Order 9 Rule 13 for recall of the ex-parte order and decree against the appellant. THE Tribunal has taken pains to go into the details of the evidence brought on record and has on appraisal of the evidence, come to the conclusion that there was sufficient ground for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree because of the reasons, inter alia, that the respondent had not been served with the summons of the eviction proceedings in the case and that the authority of the Lawyer, who had put in appearance on his behalf, could not be proved and it could not be attributed to the respondent as his signatures were denied on the Vakalatnama by the respondent's son who appeared as a witness. Furthermore, the assertion that the respondent was served in the course of the proceedings was also found to be incorrect by the First Appellate Court, who on scrutiny, found from the record that the summons were received by Mr. Rishi Kumar, who was the alleged sub-tenant. THE said Rishi Kumar had also not been produced. Alongwith this litigation, which was pending at the relevant time, there were other litigations pending between the parties including a suit for title wherein the respondent's son was held to be the owner of the property. I am informed that the said finding was not challenged and has since become final. THE First Appellate Court on the basis of the evidence and other material on record, in my opinion, has rightly come to the conclusion that it is a fit case where the ex-parte order for eviction should have been and has in fact been correctly set aside. THE respondent has been rightly allowed to defend the case. I am unable to agree with Counsel for the appellant on any of the points urged before me against the impugned order and agree with the conclusions reached by the First Appellate Court. Furthermore, the Counsel has attacked only finding of facts and has not raised any question of law. As already observed hereinabove, the findings of the First Appellate Court are neither perverse nor based on no material to warrant any interference by this Court. For these reasons, this appeal fails. THE impugned order is upheld. THE decree and order for eviction have been rightly set aside. THE parties shall appear on 1st November, 1996 before the Additional Rent Controller, who shall try the case in accordance with law. This appeal is dismissed with costs, which are assessed at Rs. 2,000.00