NOBEL MALIK Vs. HANUMANT KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order, CR-447-2020 and COCP-1993-2020 shall stand disposed of. The tenant has filed a civil revision petition against the order passed on 31.102019 by the Rent Controller while dismissing application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC which has also been affirmed in the appeal by the Appellate Authority on 16.01.2020. Whereas the petition for initiation of contempt proceedings has been filed by the landlord alleging that the tenant has violated statement given by his counsel, noticed in the interim order dated 17.06.2020.

(2.) Some facts are required to be noticed. The landlord sought eviction of the tenant from the tenanted premises by filing a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act of 1973") on various grounds including his bonafide requirement. The petitioner-tenant received summons for 21.09.2016. He is alleged to have engaged Sh. Harish Malhotra, Advocate to defend him in the eviction petition filed by the landlord. A written statement contesting the eviction proceeding was filed on 11.01.2017. The case was fixed for leading evidence. The landlord filed his affidavit in evidence on 01.02.2017 . Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 22.02.2017 in order to give opportunity to the learned counsel representing the tenant to cross-examine the landlord. On 18.04.2017, the case was once again adjourned, giving last opportunity to the counsel representing the tenant to cross-examine the landlord. However, on 03.05.2017, neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared, forcing the Court to proceed against the petitioner ex parte. Consequently on 22.09.2017, the Ex parte judgment ordering eviction of the petitioner from the tenanted premises was passed. The petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC on 22.12.2017. After framing of the issues, the parties were permitted to lead evidence. The petitioner apart from examining himself also examined Ram Bilas, Clerk of Sh. Harish Malhotra, Advocate. He also examined a clerk from Haryana Urban Development Authority.

(3.) On the other hand, the landlord himself appeared in evidence. Learned Rent Controller dismissed the application after appreciating the evidence. It was found that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for setting aside of ex parte judgment. The Court discussed the evidence of Ram Bilas, Clerk of the Counsel in detail. It was found that he was not worthy of reliance. He stated that after filing of the written statement, Sh. Harish Malhotra told the tenant-petitioner not to physically come to the Court and he will be informed whenever his physical presence would be required. It has further been stated that the case file as well as the diary maintained by the counsel was lost by Sh. Harish Malhotra. Therefore, they could not contact the petitioner or attend the hearing. The Court noticed that the petitioner has failed to produce his counsel in evidence and the evidence of the clerk does not inspire confidence.