HAKAM RAI Vs. AMARJEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No. 4547-CII-2015

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that summons in the case in hand were not issued in the form as prescribed under Section 13-A of the Act. It is further his contention that in the case in hand the summons for service of respondent were issued as if it was a simple case under Section 13 of the Act and not under Section 13-A of the Act and as such, a prejudice had been caused to the tenant-petitioner. It is his further contention that earlier respondent and his brother had filed ejectment petition against the petitioner (tenant) for his ejectment from the same very demised premises, which fact has been concealed by respondent/landlord from the Court and succeeded to get the ejectment order in this case by way of concealing the material facts from the Courts below. Proceedings before the learned Rent Controller had remained pending in this case for the period of about 7 years and the respondent/landlord never moved any application for early disposal of the case. Further he has prayed for the acceptance of the revision petition and to set aside the abovesaid both the impugned orders. In the case in hand, as per record the respondent/landlord had filed a petition under Section 13-A [13(3)(a)] of the Act seeking ejectment from the demised premises on the plea that he was in Air Force as Warrant Officer and he was retired from his said service on 31.01.2007 on superannuation. This petition as per the record was presented before the learned Rent Controller on 07.08.2007. If in the case in hand, ordinary summons for service of petitioner (tenant) had been issued instead of in the form prescribed, then that does not make any difference. It was merely an irregularity of the procedure and did not cause any prejudice to the tenant-petitioner. Then on receipt of summons of this case, petitioner (tenant) had filed an application under Section 10 of CPC for staying the proceedings along with an affidavit seeking leave to contest this petition when he put his appearance on 13.09.2007 before the learned Rent Controller. So as such he was very much aware of the fact that the instant petition for his ejectment from demised premises had been filed under Section 13-A of the Act and not simply under Section 13 of the Act. This point has been dealt with by both the Courts below meticulously and as such, the above contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is held to be not sustainable.

(3.) Then the copy of the petition under Section 13-A of the Act is available on the record and in its para No. 9 the landlord took a specific plea that earlier he had filed an ejectment petition against Ramesh Kumar and present petitioner-tenant/Hakam Rai. So as such there is no concealment of any material fact on the part of the respondent/landlord while filing this instant petition under Section 13-A of the Act.