KULBHUSHAN ADLAKHA Vs. RAMJI DASS NAGPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition is nothing, but an abuse of process of the Court and deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

(2.) EJECTMENT of the petitioner, who was a tenant on rent of Rs. 4392/- per month, was sought on the ground of non-payment of rent w.e.f. February, 1990. Ejectment petition was filed in April, 1991. On the first date of hearing, i.e. 9.10.1991, the Rent Controller assessed the costs of Rs. 100/-, but the tenant did not tender the rent or paid the costs as assessed by the Rent Controller. The tenant sought time to file written statement. The case was adjourned to 12.12.1991 for filing of written statement, but on the said date, the same was not filed. The case was again adjourned to 20.12.1991, 23.4.1992, 16.7.1992, 5.9.1992, and at last on 10.10.1992, the written statement was filed by the tenant. On filing of the written statement, the landlord filed his replication and in para 1 of the replication, it was stated that "the reply filed by the respondent and which has been placed in the file of the case is that of another petition containing six paras against the respondent pending in the court of Shri B. S. Sidhu Rent Controller, Chandigarh. It is further pertinent to mention that in the said petition pending in the court of Shri B. S. Sidhu, Rent Controller, Chandigarh respondent has not so far appeared and he has been served by affixation and by beat of drum for 22.10.1992 ....... "The averments in the reply from paras 1 to 6 do not correspond with averments of the same paras of the present petition." On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues :-

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length, I am of the view that the Rent Controller rightly dismissed the applications being frivolous. Ejectment of the petitioner was sought on the ground of non-payment of rent. Ejectment petition was filed on 26.4.1991. The service of the tenant could only be effected for 9.10.1991. On the first date of hearing, neither the rent was paid nor the costs as assessed by the Rent Controller were tendered. After availing seven opportunities, the written statement was filed. When in replication, it was brought to his notice that the written statement was not conforming to the corresponding paras of the petition, no effort whatsoever was made by the petitioner to correct his written statement. He took three opportunities to lead evidence, but none was led and per force, the Rent Controller closed his evidence. The application for leading additional evidence was dismissed by the Rent Controller and so affirmed by this Court in civil revision. Having failed on all fronts, the tenant filed an application for permission to file fresh written statement. At this stage, when the case is fixed for arguments, it does not lie in the mouth of the tenant that the copy of the ejectment petition which was filed subsequent to the filing of ejectment petition, i.e. one which is being impugned in this revision petition, was attached with the summons. I must say that a very ingenious method is being adopted by the petitioner to delay the proceedings. By this time, the tenant is in arrears of rent of more than Rs. 1,60,000/- approximately. From all this, it is crystal clear that he wants to prolong the decision by all means. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed with costs, which are assessed as Rs. 5,000/-.