ASHA YADAV Vs. KANTA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a civil revision and has been directed against the order dated 3.2.2000 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Division)/Rent Controller. Gurgaon, who allowed the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC of the tenant and set aside the ex parte order of ejectment dated 3.8.1998.

(2.) SOME facts can be noticed in the following manner :- The petitioners are the landlords and the respondent is the tenant. The petitioners filed an ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 for the eviction of the respondent on the grounds of non-payment of rent and change of user. The respondent was summoned for 13.10.1997. She was given copy of the summons on 7.10.1997 and along with the summon no copy of the petition was supplied to her. On 13.10.1997, the respondent did not turn up with the hope that the petitioners would withdraw the rent petition as the payment of the rent had been made to them. However, the learned Rent Controller passed the ejectment order on 3.8.1998 against the respondent directing her to vacate the demised premised within three months from the date of the passing of the order. Thereafter, the respondent/tenant filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte order on the ground that she was not duly served in the main proceedings and, therefore, the ejectment order could not be passed. The application was contested by the landlords and finally vide order dated 3.2.2000 the application allowed for the following reasons as given in para No. 8 of the impugned order :-

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of this case.