BALWANT RAI TAYAL Vs. SUBHASH OIL COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under sub-section (6) of Section 15 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for brevity, 'the Act') challenges order dated 4.5.2002 passed by the Appellate Authority, Hisar accepting the appeal of tenant-respondents wherein ex parte judgment dated 27.2.1998 passed by the Rent Controller, Hisar was challenged. The Rent Controller in his order dated 27.2.1998 has accepted the application of the landlord-petitioner by proceeding ex parte against the tenant-respondents and ordered their ejectment. The ex parte order passed by the Rent Controller reads as under :-

(2.) AGAINST the aforementioned order, the tenant-respondents filed an appeal which was dismissed on 15.6.1999. Therefore, order dated 15.6.1999 was challenged before this Court in Civil Revision No. 3238 of 1999 by the tenant-respondents. The judgment delivered by this Court in the aforementioned civil revision is reported as M/s Subhash Oil Company and others v. Sh. Balwant Rai Tayal and others, 2001(2) PLR 82. This Court while setting aside the order dated 15.6.1999 had issued directions to the Appellate Authority to decide the following issues :-

(3.) ON the question as to whether the appeal was maintainable or not, the learned Appellate Authority reached the conclusion that the tenant-respondents were the persons aggrieved and, therefore, they had a right to challenge the ex parte ejectment order dated 27.2.1998. The Appellate Authority reached the conclusion that the tenant-respondents were persons aggrieved because the landlord-petitioner failed to implead the legal representatives of Phool Chand, a partner of the firm who had died. The fact that Phool Chand had died, was known to the landlord-petitioner. One of the surviving partners, namely, Virender Kumar Tayal was the son of the petitioner i.e. Balwant Rai Tayal. The view of the Appellate Authority on this aspect reads as under :-