BABU RAM BHATNAGAR Vs. SATISH KUMAR RAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been preferred by the landlord against the order of the Rent Controller Karnal allowing the application of the respondent -tenant for setting aside the ex -parte decree dated 4th June, 1987. The facts of the case lie in very narrow compass and may thus be noticed.

(2.) THE landlord instituted an application for eviction of the tenant on January 2,1987 upon which the Rent Controller ordered that the service may be effected in the ordinary course as well as by registered cover for may 1 1987. The tenant failed to put in appearance on the aforesaid date resulting into ex -parte proceedings. The order of eviction was thus passed on June 4, 1987. The tenant was actually dispossessed on October 18, 1987 after the lock of the shop was broken in his absence when he was away to Panipat on 17th October, 1987. He came from Panipat to Gharaunda where the demised premises is situated on 18th October, 1987 and found that the landlord was in possession of the shop. After making the necessary inquires on 19th October, 1987 into the matter an application for setting aside the ex parte decree was moved on the ground that a fake report of the refusal was procured by the landlord in collusion with the process server. It was the case of the tenant that no summons were ever presented to him. It was further the case of the tenant that the petitioner was never sought to be served through registered post.

(3.) THE application was contested by the petitioner on the pleas that there was proper service and that the applicant was aware of the filing of the ejectment petition. The plea of limitation was also raised. On the rival pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller struck the following issues : 1. Whether the ex parte proceedings/order dated 4th June, 1987 are liable to be set aside on the grounds mentioned in the application ? OPA 2. Whether the application is not within time ? OPR 3. Relief. The Rent Controller after recording the evidence of the petitioner and the respondent decided issue No. 1 in favour of the tenant. Issue No. 2 was decided in favour of the tenant as the same was not pressed by the landlord. The revision petition of the landlord was admitted by G.R. Majithia, J. to the Division Bench apparently for the reason that there was conflict of opinion in two Single Bench decisions on the point - whether it was necessary to attach a copy of the plaint alongwith summons and if such a copy is not attached, whether the service can be called to be proper or not. This is how the revision petition has come up for hearing before us.