JOGINDER SINGH Vs. TARSEM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TARSEM Lal, respondent herein filed an ejectment petition against the petitioner, Joginder Singh who was ordered to be summoned for August 3, 1989. However, service was not effected and he was again ordered to be summoned for September 15, 1989 on filing of process fee and registered cover. Summons were not served. It was then ordered that he be served for December 14, 1989 through Munadi. However, Munadi was not effected for December 14, 1989. It was again not effected for February 2, 1990 and ultimately, Joginder Singh was ordered to be summoned through Munadi for March 15, 1990. On this date, ex-parte proceedings despite service effected through Munadi. Ejectment petition was thereafter listed for exparte evidence of the landlord and ultimately an exparte ejectment order was passed against the tenant on May 5,1990. It was thereafter the tenant moved an application on September 15, 1990 for setting aside/re-calling exparte order of ejectment. It was averred by the tenant that he came to know of the exparte order on September 11, 1990 and he inspected the file on September 12, 1990 and September 13 and 14, 1990 being holidays, he filed the application on the next working day. It was also averred by him that he was never served in any manner whatsoever. Stand taken by the tenant was controverted by the landlord. The matter was put to issue and the learned Rent Controller by its order dated October 20, 1993 dismissed the application. It is how this revision came to be filed at the instance of the tenant.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the tenant-petitioner submitted that one of the grounds of ejectment was non-payment of arrears of rent at the rate of 110/- per month from October 19, 1987 to the date of filing the petition, besides other grounds. It was canvassed that the tenant deposited Rs. 3080/with the Rent Controller on February 20, 1990 on account of rent for the period November 1987 to February 1990 and again deposited another sum of Rs. 4290/- on May 24, 1993 for the period March 1, 1990 to May 31, 1993. On the above premises, it was submitted that if the tenant had come to know that proceedings were pending against him he would not have deposited the arrears of rent with the Rent Controller on February 20, 1990 and would have rather tendered the same on the first date of hearing and that he deposited the rent as claimed in the petition before the alleged date of service in the ejectment petition. Learned counsel further submitted that service was effected through Munadi and it never came to the notice of the tenant. He referred to the interim orders to show that the tenant never refused to receive the notice of ejectment petition and submitted that it was only the second date of hearing that he was ordered to be served through Munadi and though he was ordered to be served through registered post but no effort was made to serve him by that mode before ordering substituted service.