JAGAN NATH Vs. PARSHOTAM DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeks setting aside of the order dated 27.07.2012 (Annexure P2) passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Karnal, whereby the petition of the landlord, filed under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban Rent Eviction Act, 1973 (for short, the 'Act') was dismissed due to non-appearance of both the parties at 12.30 p.m. and it was noticed that the Court time was 8 a.m. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Mahabir Parsad Singh v. M/s. Jacks Aviation Pvt. Ltd., 1999 AIR(SC) 287 Thereafter, the application dated 08.08.2012, for restoration of the case, was filed on the ground that counsel for the petitioner was out of station and the petitioner was ill and accordingly, the absence of the petitioner was not intentional and bona fide. The application was duly supported by an affidavit of the landlord and the same was contested by the tenant for obvious reasons.

(2.) The Rent Controller reiterated the earlier decision without even discussing the aspect of the illness of the petitioner-applicant and did not even take into consideration the fact that an affidavit had been filed in support of the application and dismissed the same on 17.09.2013 (Annexure P5), which is also subject matter of challenge.

(3.) There is no denying the fact that the petition for ejectment was filed on the ground of non-payment and that the shop was in a dilapidated condition and was required for the personal use, after reconstruction. The petition remained pending for a period of 3 years when it was dismissed in default. The petitioner has reproduced the zimni order passed a day earlier when the petition was dismissed in default. The said order reads as under: