KAPAL DEV Vs. SANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE grievance made in the petition is that on July, 15 1977, an ex parte order of ejectment was obtained by the Respondent against the Petitioner. On 5.2.1978 the Petitioner was sought to he ejected from the shop even though it happened to be a Sunday On 8.2.1978 he applied for the setting aside of the exparte order The Controller came to the conclusion that the notice was served upon the Petitioner but a copy of the ejectment petition was not handed ver to him at that time. On this basis, the learned Rent Controller declined to set aside the exparte proceedings.

(2.) THE Petitioner has come up in revision before me. In response to notice of motion, Mr. Puri has appeared on behalf of the Respondent. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner urges that the eviction of the Petitioner was being sought under the provisions of a special statute and no notice could be deemed to have been served upon the Petitioner in law unless he had been handed over a copy of the ejectment application.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Purl submitted that the Respondent had served a notice upon the Petitioner calling Upon him to pay arrears or rent and water charges and in his failure to do so he filed an application for eviction under this Haryana (Urban Control of Rent and eviction) Act. which was allowed. The argument raised is that even though this order was exparte the Petitioner knew of the liability because regarding that a notice had been served upon him.