VIJAY KUMAR Vs. TARA CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Sub-section (6) of Section 15 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is directed against the judgment of the Appellate Authority, Narnaul dated September 22, 1988. The Appellate Authority had dismissed the appeal of the tenant-petitioner on the ground of limitation observing that the tenant-petitioner had been intentionally delaying the proceedings because after tendering the rent on August 3, 1984, he filed the written statement on October 27, 1984 and thereafter, he never appeared. On December 13, 1984 he was proceeded exparte and two years thereafter, the Rent Controller passed the order ejecting him from the demised premises on the ground that he had caused material impairment to the demised premises and had ceased to occupy the same for a period of 3 to 4 years preceding the filing of the ejectment petition, which was instituted on February 10, 1984. The Appellate Authority by taking into consideration all the facts has concluded that no effort was made by the tenant-petitioner to seek setting aside of the exparte order passed on December 13, 1984 and he had moved the appeal under Sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act, before the Appellate Authority. In support of his view, the learned Appellate Authority has relied upon the judgment of this Court in case of Smt. Maya Devi and others v. Mehria Gram Dall Mill, Hisar and others, AIR 1988 P&H 176. The view of the Appellate Authority reads as under :-

(2.) WHEN this petition came up for hearing on January 16, 1989, it was submitted and dispossession of the tenant-petitioner was stayed. When the matter was taken up on January 29, 2003, no one put in appearance on behalf of the tenant-petitioner and on that account, the petition was adjourned for hearing for today. Again, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the tenant-petitioner.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the respondent-landlord, I find that there is merit in his contention, because the tenant-petitioner has acted in a most irresponsible manner. Virtually after tendering the rent on August 03, 1984 before the Rent Controller and filing the written statement on October 27, 1984, he failed to appear. It is further clear that he allowed himself to be proceeded exparte on December 13, 1984. He has never made any effort to get the exparte order set aside, which culminated into the passing of order of his ejectment by the Rent Controller on December 23, 1986. Thereafter, he filed the appeal before the Appellate Authority on October 29, 1987, which was delayed for more than nine months. Despite the fact that the appeal was dismissed as time barred he failed even to move an application for setting aside of the exparte order under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. He has approached this Court by filing the instant revision petition. It is obvious that the tenant-petitioner lacks bonafide and has acted with malicious intention. His absence from the proceedings before this Court strengthens this belief further. However, the judgment in the case of Maya Devi (supra) relied upon the learned counsel for landlord-respondent does not lay down the proposition that no appeal is competent against ex-parte decree. There might be some misapprehension entertained by the landlord-respondent on account of Explanation added in 1976 to R. 13 of Order 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (for brevity the Code). Rule 13 of Order 9 reads as under :-