BADRI PARSHAD Vs. RAMESHWAR DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition against whom the eviction order has been passed by both the authorities below.

(2.) THE landlord filed the ejectment application against the tenant on September 22, 1977, inter alia on the ground of non-payment of the arrears of rent from June 1, 1975 to June 30, 1976, at the rate of Rs. 25/- per month, and that the landlord bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation. It was on January 11, 1978, when the tenant appeared in the Court of the Rent Controller that he was given a copy of he eviction application. The case was adjourned to February 3, 1978, for assessing the arrears of rent and interest as the tenant pleaded that he would produce certain receipts showing the payment of the rent to the landlord for the period claimed in the ejectment application. On that day, the case was again got adjourned to March 22, 1978. By that time no document, in the form of receipt was produced to prove the payment of the rent. On March 22, 1978, the arrears of rent and interest were calculated which amounted to Rs. 631-22 and the case was adjourned to April 5, 1978. No arrears thereof were paid by then inasmuch as the tenant absented himself on that date and allowed the ex parte eviction proceedings to continue against him. It was on April 13, 1978, that the application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings was filed. However, the said application was dismissed by the Rent Controller vide detailed order dated August 7, 1979. Admittedly, no appeal against the said order was filed by the tenant as it was not appealable, but is now being challenged in this petition. After the passing of the said order, the learned Rent Controller ultimately passed the eviction order against the tenant after recording evidence of the landlord, on September 20, 1979. In the appeal filed on behalf of the tenant against the said order, the Appellate Authority affirmed the findings of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the eviction order passed against him. Dissatisfied with the same, he has come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this petition.