SURESH KUMAR Vs. GODAVERIBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 28-12-1990, passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Indore in Case No. 90(7) 10/90, whereby the application filed by the applicant under Order 9, Rule 7, C.P.C. dated 4-5-1990 was dismissed.

(2.) The short facts of the case are that the present non-applicant Smt. Godaveribai had filed an application under Section 23-A(2) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act before the lower Court for seeking eviction of house No. B-3 situated in Saket Nagar, Indore on the ground of bona fide need for residence of herself and her family members. The lower Court issued a notice of the eviction application against the present applicant but the notice was not served on the applicant himself. Instead of a report was given by the process-server that he had gone to the address given for serving the notice on the respondent but the respondent was found absent. However, his father Shri Ramgopal Khandelwal was present who took the notice, read it and returned it and refused to take the notice. Shri Ramgopal Khandelwal resides with Suresh Kumar. On the aforesaid report of the process-server the court vide its order dated 6-4-1990 held that the summons was served on the respondent and as he was not present on the date an order to proceed ex parte against the respondent was recorded. The respondent thereafter filed an application before the lower Court for setting aside the ex parte order under Order 9, Rule 7, on 4-5-1990. The learned lower Tribunal after obtaining the reply of the original applicant and hearing the arguments passed the impugned order disallowing the application of the present applicant/respondent. Hence this revision petition,

(3.) The learned counsel for the present applicant Suresh Kumar argues that the order impugned is contrary to law and, therefore, deserves to be quashed. The lower Court has not considered the relevant law on the point and has failed to take into consideration the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the present applicant in the lower Court. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the non-applicant has supported the order impugned on the ground that the application of the present applicant for setting aside the ex parte order has rightly been disallowed by the lower Court.