LADHA RAM Vs. DURGA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed by Ladha Ram tenant against the order of the Rent Controller, Ludhiana dated 22nd December, 1983 declining to set aside the ex parte order of ejectment dated 23rd October, 1982.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts are that Smt. Durga Devi filed an application for ejectment against Ladha Ram under the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, in January 1982. It was fixed for evidence of the landlady on 21st October, 1982, when the tenant did not appear. Consequently, the Rent Controller proceeded ex parte against him and adjourned the case to 23rd October, 1982 for ex parte evidence. On that day, he accepted the application for ejectment and ordered ejectment of the tenant. An application for setting aside the ex parte order dated 23rd October, 1982 was filed by the tenant on 16th February, 1983 on the ground that he fell from the roof of the house and received injuries on 1st September, 1982. He averred that in view of the injuries he could not appear before the Rent Controller. The application for restoration was contested by Smt. Durga Devi landlady. She inter alia pleaded that there were no sufficient grounds to set aside the ex parte ejectment order and that the application for restoration was not within limitation.

(3.) THE first question that arises for determination is whether the application for restoration is within time. It is not disputed that the tenant was proceeded against ex parte on 21st October, 1982 and an ex parte order of ejectment was passed against him on 23rd October, 1983. He moved the application for setting aside the ex parte order on 16th February, 1983, i.e. after the expiry of more than three months. He did not lead any other evidence except appearing himself in the witness-box. He stated that he was admitted in the hospital and was discharged from there in October, 1982. After he was discharged from the hospital he could move an application for setting aside the ex parte order. However, even thereafter, he waited till 16th February, 1983 to do so. He has not been able to show that he could not move the application within limitation for sufficient cause. In my view the appraisal of the evidence made by the Rent Controller is correct and there is no scope for interence with his finding. I consequently affirm the finding of the Rent Controller in this regard.