RATTAN SINGH Vs. HARBLAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN ex -parte order of eviction on the ground of non -payment of rent was passed against the Petitioner by the Rent Controller at Amritsar, on the application of the Respondent -landlord. The Petitioner filed an application for the setting aside of this order of eviction alleging that there had been no proper service on him of the Court's process and that he had come to know about the ex - parte order from some threats held out by the landlord a couple of days before the filing of his application. The provision of law mentioned in the heading of this application is order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) THE landlord pleaded that the Petitioner had deliberately kept away in spite of the knowledge of the proceedings and proper service on him of the Courts process and that the application filed by him was time - barred.

(3.) THE first objection taken by the Respondent -landlord is that this revision petition filed by the tenant is not competent. If the provisions of Order 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure were to be applicable to such cases before Rent Controller, an appeal would have been the proper remedy for the tenant. It was however held in Laki Ram v. Sagar Chand : (1963) 65 P.L.R. 691, that the appellate authority cannot entertain an appeal against an order passed by the Rent Controller refusing to set aside an ex -parte order of eviction. It would therefore appear that a revision petition to the High Court was the proper remedy which the tenant could adopt on the facts of this case. As no appeal is provided by law against such orders, the scope of a revision under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act may not be quite as restricted as in revisions under Section 115 of the Code.