HARDIP SINGH Vs. SH KANWALJIT SINGH MONGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against order dated May 31, 1993, of the Rent Controller, Amritsar, allowing an application made by the landlord during the pendency of proceedings under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), as amended by Act 2 of 1985.

(2.) THE material facts are that the respondent instituted a petition for ejectment of the petitioner under Section 13-A on December 3, 1990, before the Rent Controller, Amritsar. In terms of Section 18-A, the Rent Controller directed issuance of summons in the ordinary mode and simultaneously under, registered AD cover for February 8, 1991. The report dated 15th, 1991, on the summons, under the usual mode, was that the addressee would not accept the same without consulting his lawyer. The A. D. cover was returned with the report dated January 12, 1991, that in spite of several attempts to serve the same, the addressee was not available and it was, therefore, returned as refused. The case came up before the Rent Controller on the date fixed i. e. February 8, 1991, and he observed that the respondent was reported to have refused to receive summons sent by ordinary mode as well as the one sent under registered cover. It was further directed by the Rent Controller that the respondent be summoned again through munadi (proclamation) and affixation for April 2, 1991. Summons were accordingly issued afresh in the prescribed form. Munadi as well as affixation were reportedly done on February 23, 1991, and report sent to the Court. On April 2, 1991, the tenant put in appearance through his counsel, who filed a memo, of appearance and the matter was adjourned to April 18, 1991, when an affidavit was filed by the tenant seeking leave to contest the petition. The case was adjourned to May 9, 1991, for filing a reply and further proceedings. It appears that on April 18, 1991, an application was moved on behalf of the landlord that the tenant had been duly served for February 8, 1991, inasmuch as he had refused to accept service of ordinary summons as well as those issued through registered AD cover and since he had failed to file an affidavit seeking leave to defend within 15 days of the service of summons upon him, an order of ejectment be passed against him. It further appears that the said application remained pending and the matter was adjourned from time to time. Ultimately the application was taken upon for hearing and the same has been disposed of by the impugned order dated May 31, 1993, by the Rent Controller. It has been held that the tenant had been duly served on January 12, 1991, when there is a report of refusal on the Registered A. D. cover. He was also held to have been duly served on January 15, 1991, when he refused to accept service of summons sent through the ordinary mode, on the ground that he would first consult his lawyer. It was also held that in any case the service was duly effected to the tenant on February 23, 1991, when he was served through munadi and affixation in pursuance of the order of the Court. In view of the above conclusion, it was held that the tenant was not entitled to any fresh opportunity for filing an affidavit and the case was posted for hearing on the basis of the affidavit already filed by the respondent-tenant on April 18, 1991. Aggrieved by the order, the tenant has preferred this revision.

(3.) MR. T. N. Gupta, learned counsel for the landlord, took a preliminary objection that the present revision is not maintainable on two counts. Firstly, it has been submitted that under proviso to under Section 18-A (8) of the Act, the power of the High Court are narrower compared to the powers under Section 15 of the Act, and interference is possible only if there is an error of law. No such error having been bought out, revision was not competent. The second submission of Mr. Gupta is that by the impugned order, the learned Rent Controller has not held that the tenant had lost his right to make an application for leave to defend the petition for ejectment and in that sense the present revision petition is premature.