MOHINDER SINGH Vs. AVTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of the case are that the respondent filed a petition for ejectment of the petitioner under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. However, the petitioner did not appear in the said petition and an exparte order of ejectment was passed on 15.9.1984.

(2.) The petitioner, then field an application for setting aside the ejectment order by alleging that he was not served in the said petition. The respondent contested the application on various grounds and pleaded that the application has been filed with malafide intention. The petitioner was duly served and it was denied that he came to know about the ejectment order only on 19.12.1984. The learned Rent Controller, after recording the evidence of the parties, dismissed the application vide order dated 5.4.1985, against which the present petition has been filed.

(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record, I am of the considered view that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. From the evidence on record, it is clear that the petitioner had not appeared before the Rent Controller intentionally and deliberately. He filed the application for setting aside the exparte proceedings only when the respondent filed the execution application and warrant of possession was issued The petitioner himself appeared as AW-1. He admitted that the rent was due towards him for 3-4 years and another petition for the rent was pending before the Rent Controller. The respondent had examined Ram Kishan, Process Server, as RW-1. He deposed that he went to the house of the petitioner for effecting service. He had even given the location of the house where he had effected the service in the presence Of Malagar Singh, RW-2. When the petitioner refused to accept the service, then a copy of the summon with a copy of plaint were affixed at their front gate of the residence. Therefore, he was fully aware of the proceedings pending before the Rent Controller but he had not appeared in the Court deliberately and intentionally. Therefore, there is no legal infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Court below, warranting interference by this Court