GOPAL DAS B SHAH Vs. SHYAMSUNDER AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the landlord who filed the petition for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement for personal occupation. Summons to the first respondent could not be served as the premises was found locked and the process server affixed the summons on the door of the premises. Finding that the summons were not sufficiently served, the Rent Controller directed publication of notice in a news paper and the same was published on 30-6-1990. Thereafter, the matter under went several adjournments. Ultimately, eviction was ordered on 31-8-1990 and on execution, possession of premises was delivered to the petitioner on 13-11-1990. The 1st respondent filed an application for setting aside the ex parte order. The Rent Controller allowed the said application. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed giving rise to this revision petition.

(2.) Shri Koka Raghava Rao, learned Counsel for petitioner, firstly pointed that there was no application for condoning the delay in presentation of the petition for setting aside the exparte order, and, therefore, the petition was not maintainable. He next, contended that even if the date of knowledge is to be taken into consideration, both the Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority have failed to give a finding as to the date of knowledge of the 1 st resp jndent to determine whether the appl cation was filed within time under Rule 8(3) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and EvicJon) Control Rules, 1961. Thirdly, the leaned Counsel submitted that several exhibits were marked by the Rent Controller when the 1 st respondent examining himself and that both the Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority were in error in relying on Ex.P-2 in finding that the second respondent also was a co-tenant along with the 1st respondent, and that the matter should be sent back to the Rent Controller for deciding the matter afresh, in accordance with the law.

(3.) Shri Balchand, the learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that there was no need to file an application for condoning delay in seeking to set aside the exparte order. He further contended that the first respondent alleged in his affidavit that he came to know of the exparte order only on 13-11-1990 when possession of the premises was delivered to the petitioner and that even though there was no finding as to the date of knowledge either by the Rent Controller or the appellate authority, it should be taken that the respondent No.1 had knowledge, only on the date of delivery of possession. He further submitted that the documents were marked by consent and did not require any proof.