LAWS(UTN)-2017-2-30

BACHAN SINGH SAJWAN Vs. BHAGWATI PRASAD DABRAL

Decided On February 27, 2017
Bachan Singh Sajwan Appellant
V/S
Bhagwati Prasad Dabral Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this revision the judgment dated 20.5.2013 rendered by the District Judge, Tehri Garhwal has been assailed. It would be worthwhile to note the controversy between the parties sans unnecessary details. The respondent Bhagwati Prasad Dabral was the tenant in the two shops of the landlord. SCC Suit No. 1/2011 was initiated by the landlord claiming the arrears of rent and the ejectment against the tenant. The repeated efforts were made by the Court to send the service by registered post, but every time such service could not be effected for one reason or the other and one of the pre-dominant reasons was that tenant was not found at his residence or had gone outside every time, and on information left at his address, he did not come to the post-office to receive the registered post.

(2.) In these constraints, the Court directed to get the service effected through publication and such publication was made on 03.6.2011 in the local newspaper circulated in the local hills in the vicinity. Then also, the defendant tenant did not pay any heed. So, the Court was left with no option but to pass an ex-parte decree on 13.10.2011. On taking further course, decree was executed on 25.6.2012. So, the tenant moved an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree on 30.6.2012 with the averments that he could know about the passing of the decree only on 27.6.2012. He sought permission by way of moving an application to deposit the arrears of rent, as envisaged under Section 17 (Proviso) of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. The learned Court below permitted him to deposit the amount at his own risk, as per provisions of the law. Even after this order, he could present the challan seeking permission to deposit the arrears of the rent to the tune of Rs. 83,126/- on 17.8.2012.

(3.) Accepting this deposit, as contemplated under the provision as indicated above, the Court set aside the ex-parte decree on 20.5.2013 vide the impugned judgment, which is under challenge in this revision.