KULTAR SINGH Vs. KULDIP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Kuldip Singh and others filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act against Kultar Singh for his ejectment from a portion of House No. 364/71 Central Town, Jullundur City. It was reported that the tenant had refused to accept the service and the Rent Controller passed an ex parte order on 4th May, 1973. On an application filed by the tenant, this ex parte ejectment order was set aside on 1st May, 1974. The case was then posted for hearing on 9th May, 1974. On that day, the General Attorney of the landlords along with his counsel appeared in the Court in the morning. At that time, the learned counsel for the tenant has not available. After some time the case was again called and the General Attorney of the landlords went to call his counsel. He or his counsel did not turn up till 12.30 noon when the Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment application in default. An application for setting aside this order was filed by the landlords.

(2.) Mehnga Ram appearing as A. W. 1, deposed to the above mentioned facts. The Rent Controller allowed the application and set aside the order of dismissal of the ejectment application. Aggrieved by this Order, Kultar Singh tenant has filed this revision petition.

(3.) Mr. S S. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the Rent Controller has not given a finding that the landlords or their learned counsel did not appear in the Court for sufficient cause. This argument is wholly misconceived. The Rent Controller has reproduced the statement of Mehnga Ram and noticed that the learned counsel had also appeared in the Court in the morning and then concluded "possibly therefore he (General Attorney) could not reappear in the Court on account of the non-availability of his counsel." This is a clear finding by the Rent Controller that the absence was for a sufficient cause.