KULRAJ SINGH PAUL Vs. RANJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts are not in dispute. The respondents had fled a petition under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, made applicable to the Union Territory, Chandigarh, for the eviction of the petitioner from House No. 64, Sector 16A, Chandigarh. He was proceeded against ex parte on August 2, 1974, but that order was set aside on September 3, 1974, when a copy of the petition was given to him and the case was fixed for September 6, 1974. On that day, the learned Rent Controller assessed the amount of the costs as Rs. 40/- and asked the petitioner's counsel to pay the same. The counsel pleaded that he had no instructions of any kind from the petitioner and was not in a position to tender the costs. The case was then adjourned to the following day for the evidence of the respondents. As no evidence was present, the case was adjourned to September 10, 1974, for ex parte evidence of the respondents. On that day the petitioner made an application for setting aside the ex parte order. The learned counsel for the respondents had no objection to the setting aside of that order, but in spite of no objection by the respondent, the learned Rent Controller rejected the application on the ground that no order had been passed taking ex parte proceedings against the petitioner and, therefore, the application was not maintainable. That order has been challenged in this revision petition by the petitioner.

(2.) Evidently when the learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded no instructions of any kind, the proceedings taken thereafter against the petitioner were ex parte, and considering them to be so, the learned Rent Controller fixed the case for the evidence of the respondents for the following day. On that day, no counsel on behalf of the petitioner was present and because the evidence of the respondents was not present, the case was adjourned to September 10, 1974. All these proceedings were ex parte and whether an express order had been passed or not, the nature of the proceedings taken was that they were ex parte. The petitioner's application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings was, therefore, maintainable and should have been decided by the Rent Controller on merits. The order dated September 10, 1974, is accordingly set aside, and the Rent Controller is directed to decide the application made by the petitioner on that day, on merits. In the circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs.