S. NIHAL SINGH MOTORS Vs. SHAMA MALHOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of Civil Revision No. 3462 of 2004 (1st petition) and Civil Revision No. 3463 of 2004 (2nd petition) filed by the tenant-petitioners under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for brevity 'the Act'). The challenge in both the petitions is to the two orders dated 14.6.2004.

(2.) IN the 1st petition challenge is to order dated 14.6.2004 passed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana dismissing an applicant in which prayer was made for setting aside ex parte order dated 12.8.2003. In the second petition, challenge is to order dated 14.6.2004 passed by executing court dismissing the objection of the tenant-petitioner judgment debtor to the execution proceedings taken by the landlady respondent. The landlady respondent had filed an application for execution of order dated 12.8.2003 passed by the Rent Controller for ejectment of the tenant-petitioners from the demised shop. (I) Brief facts concerning the order of provisional rent and striking of defence.

(3.) THE tenant-petitioners filed an application for setting aside the order dated 12.8.2003 whereby the defence was struck off by attaching two medical certificates dated 22.2.2003 and 15.8.2003. The application was styled as "for setting aside the ex parte proceedings and ex parte order dated 12.8.2003". However, it was factually an application for setting aside the order dated 12.8.2003 on the various grounds which by no stretch of imagination was an ex parte order. The Rent Controller noticed that ex parte proceeding against the tenant-petitioner was already set aside on 16.5.2003 subject to payment of costs of Rs. 200/- and thereafter on 31.5.2003 the provisional assessment order of rent plus interest plus costs was passed. The Rent Controller also noticed the other facts to which reference has already been made. It was pointed out that the tenant-petitioner was categorically warned on 10.6.2003 that in case they did not pay the arrears of rent before 24.7.2003 then it was to strike off their defence by passing appropriate order. On 24.7.2003 the tenant-petitioner made "mockery of the order passed on 10.6.2003 and did not come forward for payment of rent as per the order dated 31.5.2003" which led to the passing of the order striking off the defence of the tenant-petitioners on 24.7.2003. Holding that there was no ex parte proceeding, the learned Rent Controller passed the impugned order dated 14.6.2004 the operative part of which reads as under :