GIAN CHAND Vs. BALBIR KUMAR ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Civil Miscellaneous Application has been filed Under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, at the instance of the tenant, for setting aside of the judgment passed in Civil Revision No. 1847 of 1980, by which the revision petition filed by the landlord petitioner had been accepted and the eviction of the respondent tenant ordered.

(2.) THE facts leading to the present application are given hereunder :the demised premises was rented out to the tenant way back in 1962. The landlord filed an application for the eviction of the tenant on various grounds. This application was allowed and the Rent Controller found that the demised premises were liable to be got vacated from the tenant on the grounds set out in the ejectment application. The judgment of the Rent Controller was, however, reversed by the Appellate Authority, with the result that the ejectment application stood rejected. As already indicated, the revision petition filed by the landlord was accepted by this Court vide order dated December 27, 1993 and the ejectment of the applicant-tenant has been ordered but two months' time was given to him to vacate the premises in dispute provided the entire arrears of rent due up to date were cleared and the advance rent also paid for the subsequent two months and an undertaking filed by the tenant before the Rent Controller to vacate the premises on the expiry of the aforesaid period. It appears that in pursuance of this order, the applicant Gian Chand, who had become the tenant on the death of Kaka Ram, his father the original tenant, filed an undertaking before the Rent Controller on January 3, 1994in which he undertook to vacate the premises in dispute within two months in the eventuality of his being unable to secure a stay order form the Supreme Court. The applicant, thereafter filed Special Leave Petition (Civil/ii) No. 457 of 1994 in the Supreme Court, but the same was dismissed vide order Annexure P-2 dated February 11, 1994. Their order is reproduced below : "we see no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed. The Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, states that after the death of the tenant, the legal representatives of the tenant, who were brought on record, were not served and the order was passed in their absence; The petitioner may, if so advised, approach the High Court. "

(3.) IN the reply filed on behalf of the petitioner, the positive stand taken is that as the revision petition had been argued at length by one of the eminent senior counsel of this Court and that as the Supreme Court having found no ground to interfere with the judgment had dismissed the Special Leave Petition, there was no occasion to review the same. It has also been submitted in the course of arguments by Mr. M. L. Sarin, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents that as per the Punjab High Court Amendment made to Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil procedure, the mailer could have been decided even without impleading the legal representatives and as no prejudice has been suffered by the applicant, the matter having been adequately argued, no ground for selling aside the judgment of the High Court was made out. It has lastly been urged that once the tenant had given an undertaking to vacate the premises in pursuance to the order of the High Court subject to his right to move the Supreme Court, it was not open to him to challenge the correctness of the judgment of this Court. Reliance has been placed upon R. N. Gosain v. Yash Pal Dhir," (1993-2) P. L. R. 184 (S. C.) for this assertion.