PARKASH CHAND Vs. NORATA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller, Malerkotla, dated 6th of October, 1980 whereby the application for setting aside the ex parte eviction order filed on behalf of the tenant-petitioner was dismissed.

(2.) The landlord Norata Ram filed an ejectment application on 15th of June, 1978 on the ground of non-payment of rent from 1.1.1970 to 31.5.1978. The next date or summoning the tenant was fixed 22nd of August, 1978. Summons were issued by the Rent Controller which are said to have been served for 22nd of August, 1978 on 20th of June 1978 i.e. about two months earlier from the date fixed. Exhibit A.1, is the copy of the original summons and it is unfortunate that the same is torn out and was not legible. Its certified copy is Exhibit A. 2. From the said copy, it is stated that the tenant was personally served though it did not bear the signature of any attesting witness thereon. Since no one appeared on behalf of the tenant on 22.8.1978, ex-parte eviction order was passed against him. In execution of that order warrants of possession of the disputed premises were issued and before the landlord could take possession of the demised premises under the ex-parte eviction order Parkash Chand, tenant filed an application for setting aside the ex-party eviction order passed against him. It was alleged that he was a tenant in the demised premises at the rate of Rs. 25/- per month and he had been paying rent to Gian Chand, son of the landlord and had already paid rent up to 30.6.1974. He further stated that he was never served in the ejectment petition and the report made by the process server about his alleged service was collusive in nature. He came to know of the ex-parte eviction order only one day prior to the filing of this application. He further stated that he had paid the rent to Gian Chand, son of the landlord up to 30.6.1974, and had ready money for the payment of rent for the period from 1.7.1974 to 31.1.1978 along with interest and costs of the application.

(3.) In the reply filed on behalf of the landlord, it was pleaded that the tenant was personally served but he did not intentionally put in appearance in the Court as he was not in a position to pay the arrears of rent. The other allegations were denied as regards payment of rent by the tenant to his son Gian Chand up to 30.6.1974. It was stated that Gian Chand was never authorised to receive the rent on behalf of the landlord. On these pleadings, the Rent Controller framed the following issues :