MUNISH SHARDA Vs. BHAI MANBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The questions involved in this revision petition are as under:-

(2.) A few facts are required to be noticed in order to find out answer to the aforesaid questions. Bhai Manbir Singh and Bhai Mandeep Singh [hereinafter referred to as "landlords"] filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short "the Act"] seeking eviction of M/s Good Luck Marketing Services Private Limited [hereinafter referred to as 'tenant"], Munish Sharda and Aryans International [hereinafter referred to as "sub-tenants"] from the First Floor of SCO Nos.32-35, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh [hereinafter referred to as "demised premises"] on the ground of non-payment of rent. On 03.02.2009, the Seamed Rent Controller passed the following order:-

(3.) The aforesaid order dated 24.12.2009 was challenged by the petitioners by way of statutory appeal in which it was alleged by them that they are tenants in the demised premises under the landlords at a monthly rent of Rs.25,920/-. On receipt of the summons for 28.03.2009, they had engaged Kulwant Singh Bawa, Advocate [for short "K.S. Bawa"] to contest the eviction petition, who told the petitioners that since it was a matter of civil nature, therefore, their presence was not required on each and even' date of hearing and he would inform them as and when the need would arise for the purpose of their appearance, as a result of which, the petitioners could not come present on each and every date of hearing and came to know on 30.03.2010 when the landlords threatened to take possession of the demised premises on the ground that an eviction order has already been passed against them. It is alleged that the petitioners rushed to the Court and found that their Advocate K.S. Bawa had already expired on 10.06.2009. Then, they engaged Anil Kumar Bhai, Advocate and had found that the presence of Narinder Singh Bawa, Advocate [for short "N.S. Bawa"] has been marked on each and every date of hearing even after the death of K.S. Bawa on 10.06.2009. It was further alleged that N.S. Bawa was not engaged by the petitioners to appear on their behalf and as such, his appearance before the learned Rent Controller on their behalf was inconsequential. However, the learned Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal vide its order dated 05.01.2011. The petitioners has, thus, filed the present revision petition in order to challenge the validity of order dated 28.10.2009 by which their defence was struck off, order dated 24.12.2009 by which they have been ordered to be evicted from the demised premises due to non-tendering of rent and order dated 05.01.2011 by which their appeal has been dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority.