SHRI HANBANS LAL Vs. SHRI S.P. MALHOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this revision has no merit whatsoever. The petitioner landlord filed an application for the ejectment of the respondent-tenant on the ground that he was in arrears of rent. The summonses were issued to the tenant for 8.6.1982. Bare copy of the summonses was served on the tenant but without a copy of the ejectment petition containing the ground/grounds of ejectment. The tenant did not appear because he considered that he was not duly served. Ultimately, ex-parte ejectment order was passed on 29.7.1982. Thereafter the tenant filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex-parte ejectment order on the ground that he was not duly served in the ejectment petition and, therefore, ejectment order was bad in law. The trial Court declined to set aside the ex-parte ejectment order but the lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the ex-parte ejectment order. I am of the opinion that the lower Appellate Court rightly set aside the ex- parte ejectment order in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Jagat Ram v. Shanti Sarup, 1965 67 PunLR 45, wherein it was categorically held that mere service of summonses will not make the hearing a first hearing; unless the summonses have been served with a copy of the application. It was further held that due service means the service when the tenant is made aware of the ground he is to answer in response to the service of summonses. In ejectment cases, on the ground of non-payment of rent, if the tenant does not know that the ejectment is sought on this ground, what possibly he can do on the first date of hearing because the requirement of law under the East Punjab Urban Restriction Act, 1949, is that if the arrears of rent are not paid on the first date of hearing along with the costs and interest, the tenant is necessarily to be ejected. Therefore, it was very important in this case to make aware the tenant with the ground of non-payment of rent, he ought to have been made aware so that he could tender the arrears of rent on the first date of hearing. Admittedly, the copy of the ejectment petition was not served on a tenant when a copy of the summonses was served on him. Therefore, it was no service in the eye of law and he had no opportunity to tender the arrears of rent and consequently, the ex- parte ejectment order was clearly illegal and has been rightly set aside by the lower Appellate Court.

(2.) It was then argued by Shri Thapar, appearing for the landlord, that it has been held in Meja Singh v. Karam Singh, 1981 83 PunLR 386, that the date on which the ex-parte proceedings or ex-parte ejectment order is set aside, would be considered as the first date of hearing. On these premises, he urges that 22.7.1983 would be considered as the first date of hearing because on that date the lower Appellate Court set aside the ex-parte ejectment order. There is no quarrel with this proposition. If no or by 22.7.1983, the tenant had not paid the arrears of rent, which were due from him on the date of filing of the ejectment petition, along with interest and costs, then it will be open to the Rent Controller to pass an order of ejectment, but in case by 22.7.1983 the tenant had already paid the said amount, he would not be liable to ejectment. This matter cannot be gone into in this revision petition and will be decided by the Rent Controller.

(3.) For the reasons recorded above this revision is devoid of merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs. The parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, on 28.2.1984.