SITA RAM SHROFF Vs. RESHMO DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT . Reshmo Devi is admittedly owner of bungalow No. 3-Ram Nagar, Race Course Road, Amritsar. The area in which the bungalow was situated, was renamed and new numbers were provided. The new address of that bungalow is 83-Basant Avenue, Amritsar. It was on rent with the Sita Ram. On 3rd June, 1977, the landlady obtained an ex-parte order of ejectment against the tenant on the ground that he had ceased to occupy the premises for more than four months before the filing of the petition for ejectment. On 28th July, 1977, the tenant filed the application for setting aside the ex-parte ejectment order on the ground that he was not served in the proceedings and specifically pleaded that two days before the date of filing the application for setting aside the ex-parte ejectment order, he had gone to Sahib Dayal father of the landlady to tender rent when he came to know that the ejectment order had been passed against him. The application was contested by the landlady who pleaded that when the tenant could not be served personally, and the premises were found (sic) locked by substituted service after obtaining order of the Rent Controller in accordance with law. It was further pleaded that no sufficient cause had been made out and the application was beyond the limitation of 30 days. The Rent Controller framed the following issues :-

(2.) GENERALLY , ex-parte ejectment orders are not allowed to stand wherever tenant is able to show sufficient cause or it is found that grave injustice would be caused to the tenant. In the present case, both the things are lacking. Here, the landlady appears to be in difficulty whereas the tenant appears to be an affluent person as according to his own case he is doing business at several places in the country as also abroad. According to his own statement he visits the town of Amritsar seldom occasionally because in connection with his business he is to go to Bombay, Delhi Calcutta, Ludhiana, Australia, Japan, Korea, Newzeland, England etc. His witness Nikka Ram stated that the tenant visits the premises in dispute only 5/6 times in a year. It is not a case where the tenant is keeping his family in the bungalow in dispute. His case is that he keeps/stores the business goods in the premises.

(3.) THE ejectment was sought on the ground that the premises were being kept locked for over four months before filing of the ejectment application which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the Act. Even this ground is largely substantiated from the evidence of the tenant because his own case is that he visited Amritsar occasionally and visited other places in the country and abroad for doing his business. It is also true that his family is not living in the bungalow in dispute and is living somewhere else in India or abroad. As already pointed out, if there had been any manifest injustice to the tenant ex-parte order of ejectment would have been set aside but this is not such a case. The tenant being a big business-man will not be allowed to play with poor landlady who filed ejectment proceedings in the year 1976 and obtained ex-parte ejectment order 3rd June, 1977. She should not be made to suffer another round of litigation by setting aside the ex-parte ejectment order. It is said time and again by the Courts that in revisional jurisdiction, the Courts interfere only whenever there is manifest injustice to the person who approaches in revisional jurisdiction. In this case interference will cause manifest injustice to the respondent and by non interference will be no injustice to the petitioner because he keeps the premises mostly locked and has not shown if he is carrying on any business in the same although it is a bungalow in a residential jurisdiction.