JINDER KAUR Vs. SARABJIT SINGH BAJAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition is by the legal representatives of Jasbir Singh, who was impleaded as a tenant in an ejectment petition filed by Sarabjit Singh Bajaj to seek his eviction, inter-alia, on the ground that he has sublet the premises.

(2.) THE brief facts leading to the present petition are that one Sarabjit Singh Bajaj filed an ejectment petition against Jasbir Singh and two other respondents in March, 1995 alleging therein that the tenant is in arrears of rent and Jasbir Singh has sublet the shop in dispute to respondents No. 2 and 3 without written consent. It was mentioned that respondents No. 2 and 3 are running wine shop in the tenanted premises and every year new contract for sale of wine is allotted. Last year, respondent No. 1 sublet the shop to respondents No. 2 and 3 after taking heavy 'Padgi' and now in the month of April 1995 new contract would be allotted and respondent No. 5 would sublet this shop to another contractor after taking Pagdi amount.

(3.) THE present petitioners moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside an exparte order of ejectment, inter alia, alleging that Jasbir Singh had died on 21.03.1999 and that the petitioners had no knowledge about the pendency of the proceedings and, thus, exparte proceedings against them should be set aside. The petitioners have alleged that they came to know about the exparte order of ejectment from Vinod Puri on 31.5.2001 when he told them about the pendency of the ejectment proceedings and soon after they moved an application for setting aside the exparte order. In reply to such application, the landlord submitted that Jasbir Singh moved frivolous applications to prolong the litigation. One application was withdrawn on 21.03.1996 and numerous opportunities were taken for the purposes of filing of the written statement. The issues were framed on the basis of the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant and the landlord examined his witness on 23.07.1999 and the case was adjourned for cross-examination of the witness produced by the landlord. It was, thus, said that the tenants are delaying the disposal of the ejectment petition by way of unfair means only to harass the landlord. It was also mentioned that it was the duty of the legal representatives to come forward to be impleaded as legal heirs.