GLOBETECH ENGINEERS Vs. AJAY BHADHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent Ajay Chadha and others sought eviction of the present appellant (respondent before the Trial Court) on the ground of non-payment of rent. The respondents let out the premises bearing No.208, Pragati House, 47-48, Nehru Place, New Delhi to the appellant on a monthly rent of Rs.2100.00 . It was the case of the respondents that the tenant despite service of notice of demand dated 19th July,1983 neither paid nor tendered the rent w.e.f. 1st June, 1983.

(2.) Summons of eviction by the Court were duly served by ordinary as well as by registered A/D post on the present appellant. However, none appeared on his behalf, as such this appellant was proceeded ex-parte by the learned Additional Rent Controller (inshort ARC). An ex-parte order under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (in short the Act) was passed on 15th Septembcr,1984 thereby directing this appellant to pay or deposit the entire arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.2100.00 per month payable from 1st June, 1983 within one month from the date of the order failing which deemed order of eviction would be passed against this appellant. On 17th December,1984 present appellant filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code alleging therein that he was not aware of the passing of any order under Section 15(1) or about the pendency of eviction petition. He received the notice from the Court on 12th December,1984 wherein he was required to appear on 18th January,1985 in execution proceedings. It was appellant's case in his application under Order 9 Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code that he had no knowledge of the institution of eviction proceedings against him earlier than the receipt of notice on 12th December,1984. The appellant being a partnership firm having not been served with the summons of the case the ex-parte order was bad in law, and hence, liable to be be set aside. This application was contested. The learned ARC after recording the evidence on the application, dismissed the same. The appeal filed against that order has also been dismissed vide the impugned order dated 31st Dcccmber,1992.

(3.) In this appeal the order of eviction as well as order passed under Section 15(1) have been assailed, on various grounds and one amongst those grounds is that a composite order under Section 15(1) and 14(1)(a) of the Act could not be passed. Composite order being bad in law hence the said order is liable to be set aside.