LAWS(P&H)-2014-1-67

RAVINDER NATH SHARMA Vs. SHAM SUNDER

Decided On January 31, 2014
RAVINDER NATH SHARMA Appellant
V/S
SHAM SUNDER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is landlord of the demised premises, sought eviction of the respondents/tenants on the grounds of non -payment of rent and personal necessity.

(2.) THE facts of the case would reveal that the learned Rent Controller passed an ex -parte order leading to an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC being filed by the respondents, which was dismissed by the Rent Controller, but in appeal the same was accepted, which is now the cause of grievance to the petitioner. The reason for accepting the said application given by the Appellate Court is the doubt expressed regarding effecting service upon Mohan Lal, deceased father of the respondents/tenants.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, would rely extensively on the findings recorded by the learned Appellate Court to have the Court believe that Sohan Lal brother of Mohan Lal had played a fraud upon him by playing into the hands of the landlord from whom he had taken consideration to vacate the premises. He states that the fact that he appeared as a witness of the landlord would indicate such collusion. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the order of the Appellate Court and am of the considered view that the Appellate Court has gone on conjectures to conclude a fraud played upon Mohan Lal. Similarly, it has been largely conjectural in concluding regarding the summons being effected upon Mohan Lal. I have examined the testimony of the Process Server closely.