SUBASH CHANDER Vs. BANARSI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Banarsi Lal respondent is the owner of shop in dispute situated at chowk Sarajan, Hoshiarpur. It is in occupation of the petitioner as a tenant. The respondent filed an ejectment petition against the petitioner from the shop on the grounds of non-payment of rent for three months and for change of user. The service of the petitioner was sought to be effected by registered post. The postman returned the registered cover with the report that the petitioner had refused to accept the same. The Learned Rent Controller on the basis of the report on the registered cover vide order dated 12th June, 1981 ordered ex parte proceedings against the petitioner. The courts were closed from 16th June, 1981 to 15th July, 1981. On 16th July, 1981 the petitioner moved an application before the Rent Controller for setting aside the order regarding taking of ex partner proceeding against him, which was dismissed vide order dated 16th December, 1981 and the case was adjourned for ex-parte evidence of the respondent on 19th March, 1982. The petitioner has assailed the order of the Rent Controller dated 16th December, 1981 in the present revision.

(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the first place the petitioner did not refuse to accept the registered cover and as such was not properly served for 12th June, 1981. Secondly the registered cover when opened by the trial Court was found to contain only a notice and not a copy of the petition filed by the respondent. The argument proceeds that even assuming that the petitioner had refused to accept the registered cover, it shall be presumed that he received the notice for appearance on 12th June, 1981 without a copy of the application. The petitioner could be taken to have been properly served when a copy of the petition had also been supplied to him. The impugned order of the Rent Controller declining to set aside the order regarding taking of ex parte proceedings against the petitioner is, therefore, bad.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the petitioner did refuse to accept registered cover and as such the learned Rent Controller rightly ordered ex parte proceedings against him on 12th June, 1981. The petitioner cannot get the order regarding taking of ex parte proceedings against him set aside on the ground that the registered cover sent to him, which was refused, contained only a notice and not a copy of the petition filed by the respondent. It has further been contended that in case the impugned order is set aside, then the petitioner should be burdened with heavy costs.