BAL KISHAN Vs. TARA CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE looks to be a section of tenants, which seems to think that by not paying rent, they can force the landlord to approach the Court for recovery of rent and then allow the proceedings before the Court to go ex parte by disappearance during the course of proceedings or by non-appearance. The present case is an illustration of the afore-mentioned syndrome, which has been observed in a class of cases. It is a such like tenant, who has approached this Court under Section 15(6) of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for brevity 'the Act'), challenging order dated 17.3.2005 passed by the Rent Controller dismissing their application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code (for brevity 'the Code') for setting aside ex parte order of ejectment dated 13.4.1997.

(2.) IT would be necessary to refer to skeleton facts in order to put the controversy in its proper perspective. The landlord-respondent filed rent petition No. 101-RT-1996 instituted on 13.6.1994/15.4.1996 against the tenant-petitioner under Section 13 of the Act, seeking ejectment of the tenant-petitioner from a room fully detailed in the head note of the petition, inter alia, on the plea that the tenant-petitioner had failed to pay the rent @ Rs. 100/- per month after 31.5.1993. The rent claimed was for the period from 1.6.1993 to 31.5.1994 amounting to Rs. 1200/- along with the house tax, interest and costs. Then the tenant-petitioner was sought to be served on his last known address. His family members had refused to divulge his address as is evident from endorsement on registered cover available on the file of the rent petition. Thereafter, the Rent Controller allowed the service by publication under Order 5 Rule 20 of the Code and accordingly, notice was published in "Dainik Mewat" for 24.8.1996. Despite publication of notice, none came present and the tenant-petitioner was proceeded ex parte. The landlord- respondent in support of his case produced overwhelming evidence to show that the rate of rent was Rs. 100/- per month and the rent with effect from 1.6.1993 to 31.5.1994 amounting to Rs. 1200/- was due against the tenant- petitioner on the day of filing the rent petition. It was further held that no subsequent rent had been paid by the tenant-petitioner. On the basis of ex parte evidence produced by the landlord-respondent, the Rent Controller recorded categorical finding in his order dated 30.4.1997. The concluding part of the aforementioned order reads as under :-

(3.) THE application was contested by the landlord by specifically denying the allegation of collusion and other assertions by the tenant-petitioner. It was asserted that the tenant-petitioner was aware of the ejectment, right from the very beginning.