MUNNALAL TIWARI Vs. PREMCHAND JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Munnalal on 8-4 1965 filed an application under section 10 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter called fthe Act') for fixation of the standard rent in respeot of his tenanted premises, viz., house No. 53 /2, situate in Lordganj, Jabalpur. After a couple of hearings, when the case was taken up on 7-5-1955, the defendant-respondent tenant was absent. THE case was, therefore, proceeded with ex parte against him and fixed for the evidence of the plaintiff appellant landlord on 5-6-1965. On 5-6-1965, the plaintiff-appellant was examined and the case was fixed for 30-6-1965 for the examination of the plaintiff-landlord's remaining witnesses. Later, on that date i. e. on 5-6-1965 after the plain tiff-appellant had been examined, the defendant-tenant-respondent appeared and prayed for a decision on his application for setting aside the order declaring him ex parte on 7-5-1965. THE parties were heard on 16-11-1965 and the application was dismissed on 24-11-1965. THE dismissal was later affirmed in appeal. THEreafter, the case dragged on, and ultimately it was fixed for ex parte evidence of the plaintiff- appellant on 14-11-1966. THE case was, however, taken up on 15-11-1966 and not on 14-11-1966. On that date, one Mangal Prasad was examined as a witness on behalf of the plaintiff appellant. After the witness had been examined and the plaintiff-appellant had closed his evidence, the learned counsel for the defendant-respondent tenant appeared and desired to cross-examine the witness. THE prayer was not granted. It appears that the Rent Controlling Authority was of opinion that the defendant-respondent tenant could not take part in the proceedings as he had already been declared ex parte on 7-5-1965. THE learned counsel for the defendant respondent tenant prayed for permission to argue on the point. After hearing the counsel for both the parties, the Rent Controlling Authority by its order, dated 3-4-1967, held that the defendant-respondent tenant was not entitled to cross-examine the witness for the plaintiff appellant landlord unless and until the order, dated 7-5-1965, declaring him ex parte had been vacated. THE defendant-respondent tenant appealed to the District Judge who, by his order, dated 11-9-1967, which is the subject-matter of this appeal, held that the defendant-respondent tenant had a right to take part in the proceedings from the stage he appeared to contest them and that he could not have been debarred from cross-examining the plaintiff-appellant's witness on 15-11-1966. THE plaintiff-appellant has come up in appeal against the order of the District Judge dated 11-9-1967.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appeal to the District Judge was incompetent as the order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority on 3-4-1967 was not an appealable order under section 31 of the Act.

(3.) IT is then contended that as the defendant-tenant had been declared ex parte on 7-5-1965, he could not be permitted to take part in the proceedings on 15-11-1966, unless and until the ex parte order had been set aside.