NANAD KISHORE Vs. SANTOSH MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent had filed the petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 against petitioner No. 1 and his father Tarsem Lal seeking their ejectment from the disputed shop. The said ejectment petition was allowed in ex parte by the trial Court vide order dated 30.11.2007 (Annexure P-1). Thereafter, an application was moved by petitioner No. 1 under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC for short) for setting aside the ex parte ejectment order. The said application was dismissed vide impugned order dated 28.1.2013. Hence, the present petition by the petitioners. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

(2.) In the present case, learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure P-4, report made by the process server, which reads as under:-

(3.) Thus, as per the above report, petitioner No. 1 was not found at the spot and his father had refused to accept summons on behalf of his son. Although, father of petitioner No. 1 had also refused to accept summons on his own behalf but so far as petitioner No. 1 is concerned, he was not found present at the spot. In these circumstances, learned Rent Controller should have made another effort to effect service on petitioner No. 1 rather than initiating ex parte proceedings against him.