JIT SINGH Vs. RAJWANT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this order I dispose of three civil revisions bearing Nos. 5114 of 1999, 5385 of 1999 and 1160 of 2001, titled Jit Singh v. Smt. Rajwant Kaur, as in my opinion all these revisions can be disposed of by one order.

(2.) SOME facts can be noticed in the following manner :- Smt. Rajwant Kaur widow of Prof. Harbhajan Singh filed an ejectment petition against Jit Singh seeking his ejectment from the demised premises fully described in the petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Notice of the petition was given to the respondent-tenant, who was personally served. In sprite of personal service the respondent-tenant did not appear before the Rent Controller and was proceeded ex parte on 29.7.1997. Finally, an ex parte ejectment order was passed on 18.10.1997. Thereafter the landlady filed an application under Section 152 C.P.C. praying that in the earlier ejectment petition wrong description with regard to the boundaries of the demised premises had been given and she may be allowed to correct the boundaries. The said application was allowed ex parte vide order dated 26.9.1998. Respondent Jit Singh then filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. before the Rent Controller for setting aside the ex parte order of eviction dated 18.10.1997 but the same was declined on 19.8.1999.

(3.) TWO points survive for consideration in this case. Firstly, whether the Rent Controller was justified in allowing the application under Section 152 C.P.C. ex parte; and secondly, whether the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. has been rightly rejected by the Rent Controller or not. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Rent Controller could not allow the application under Section 152 C.P.C. ex parte and it was obligatory upon him to issue notice of the said application to the respondent-tenant and by non-issuing the said notice a serious prejudice has been caused to the tenant when the description of the demised premises has been changed by the landlady at the back of the tenant. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is a sufficient cause for setting aside the ex parte order of ejectment.