SURAJ BHAN Vs. SOM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Suraj Bhan petitioner is the landlord of shop in dispute situate in main Bazar Kaithal, which is in occupation of Som Parkash respondent as a tenant. The petitioner filed a petition for ejectment against the respondent on March 28 1980, on the ground that the later had not paid arrears of rent since July 3, 1975. A notice was issued to Som Parkash which was returned with the endorsement that Som Parkash was reported to be out of station. The Rent Controller ultimately ordered the substituted service of Som Parkash by publication in a newspaper for August 25, 1980. The substituted service of the respondent was effected for the date fixed. He did not put in appearance. On August 25, 1980, Shishu pal son of Som Parkash respondent appeared and submitted an application stating therein that Som Parkash had disappeared since February 18, 1980, and could not be traced out inspite of best efforts and the proclamation published in the newspaper He prayed for permission to look after the interest of Som Parkash respondent in the ejectment petition filed by Suraj Bhan petitioner.

(2.) On September 1, 1980, the Rent Controller directed Suraj Bhan petitioner to supply the present address of the respondent. On September 25, the petitioner again gave the same address of the respondent which he had previously given. The petitioner prayed that as the respondent had not put in appearance as a result of substituted service, ex-parte proceedings may be ordered against him. The Rent Controller vide impugned order dated November 20, 1980, did not agree to order ex-parte proceedings against the respondent and instead allowed his son Shishu pal to look after his father's interest in the petition filed by the petitioner. It is against this order that the present revision is directed.

(3.) It is not disputed that the arrears of rent etc. was tendered by Shishupal in the Court of Rent Controller to the petitioner and the latter accepted it subject to his objection that it was not a legal tender inasmuch as it had not been tendered by Som Parkash respondent himself.