SARDAR SINGH Vs. KRISHAN LAL BHARTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for brevity 'the Act') prays for quashing Order dated 8,6.2001 passed by the Rent Controller, Rohtak declining the application of the sub-tenant/petitioner to set aside the ex parte proceedings taken against the petitioner after 14.12.1995.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the landlord-respondent Mahesh Chander (later substituted by the present landlord-respondent, who is the subsequent vendee) filed an ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Act being rent petition No. 48/97 of 2001 against Vidyawati, tenant and also against the petitioner and impleaded him as a party on the allegation that he has been a sub-tenant. It was alleged that the tenant Vidya Wati had sub-let the demised shop to the sub-tenant-petitioner. On the presentation of the petition and its registration, notices were issued to the petitioner. He had duly received the summons for 14.12.1995 and the endorsement on the summons clearly shows that the petitioner had recorded with his own hands on the summons that he had been working in the shop, he had no connection with this case and it was not his duty to receive the notice. He also mentioned that his father's name was not Dev Raj. After the receipt of summons, the Court recorded in its order dated 14.12.1995 that the service is complete although no express order of ex parte against the petitioner was passed. Thereafter, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, 'the Code') was filed by the vendee landlord-respondent for replacing the name of Mahesh Chander, the vendor who had originally filed the application for ejectment which was dismissed by the Rent Controller on 29.1.1998. The order passed by the Rent Controller was challenged before the Appellate Authority which vide its order dated 12.3.1998 allowed the appeal and the application of the vendee, landlord-respondent No. l and the case was sent back to the Rent Controller for 21.3.1998. The other material date which is necessary to mention is, 18.5.1999, when landlord-respondent No. l filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code which was allowed. It is also appropriate to mention that the petitioner had duly signed the report of the Local Commissioner. After having chosen not to appear before the Rent Controller on 14.12.1995, the petitioner filed an application before the Rent Controller in 2001 under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code for setting aside the ex parte proceedings against him. The application has been dismissed and the operative part of the order reads as under:-

(3.) Mr. Harsh Kinra, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that there is no ex- press order initiating ex parte proceedings against the petitioner as per the mandate of Order 9 Rule 6 of the Code and in the absence of any express order in that regard, no ex parte proceedings could be initiated. The learned counsel has further submitted that notice was also necessary after the withdrawal, allowing of the appeal by the Appellate Authority and amendment in the ejectment petition after the appeal and the application of the landlord-respondent were allowed. It was received by the Rent Controller on 21.3.1998 when service was effected on the other parties. He has also submitted that in any case, the service was defective as the father's name of the petitioner was incorrectly mentioned as Dev Raj. Whereas name of father of the petitioner is Bansi Lal.