SUKHDEV SINGH SANDHU Vs. SMT. KARTAR KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been directed against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Patiala, on March 13, 1975 (hereinafter called the impugned order) resorting the petition moved by the respondent for eviction of the petitioner, on the application (hereinafter referred to as the application) made by her for that purpose. The brief facts of the case are that :-

(2.) Shrimati Kartar Kaur (now the respondent) made a petition under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act for ejectment of Sukhdev Singh (now the petitioner) from House No. 415 situate in the locality known as Raghomajra, Patiala, on various grounds The said petition was posted for production of her remaining evidence on December 29, 1973. She or her counsel did not appear on that date, therefore, the learned Rent Controller dismissed the said petition for default. Hence, she applied on January 2, 1974 for restoration of her aforesaid petition, stating that she had fallen ill on that date, and her counsel could not appear due to the death of his cousin. Notice of the application moved by Shrimati Kartar Kaur could not be served on Sukhdev Singh personally. Therefore, resort was had to substituted service. He did not appear and, therefore, the impugned order was passed ex-parte by the learned Rent Controller on March 13, 1975 resorting the eviction petition so which had been dismissed for default earlier. Aggrieved by the said order, Sukhdev Singh came to this Court in revision.

(3.) The main contention of Mr. Muneshwar Puri, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that notice of the application was never served, much less duty, on him (the petitioner). It is not disputed, and the record bears ample evidence, that the petitioner was not served personally. According to the report made by the Process Server on that notice issued for January 31, 1974, the petitioner had gone to England. Therefore, the learned Rent Controller directed that notice be served on him through prepaid post envelopes. The same were not furnished by Shrimati Kartar Kaur, though the application had been adjourned to different dates. Ultimately, the learned Rent Controller directed on July 19, 1974 that proclamation requiring the appearance of the petitioner be published in 'The Tribune'. The said proclamation was published in 'The Tribune'. The requiring the petitioner to enter appearance on December 10, 1974. The application could not be taken up on that date i.e. on December 10, 1974, because the learned Rent Controller was on leave. On December 12, 1974, the learned Rent Controller directed that the petitioner be served by affixation of notice and by beat of drum. The process server affixed a copy of the summons on some open space and proclamation was made by beat of drum, most probably in the locality, known as Raghomajra, Patiala, requiring the petitioner to appear on January 16, 1975. It was on that date, i. e. on January 16, 1975 that the learned Controller thought that the petitioner had been served by affixation and by beat of drum, and ordered ex parte proceedings against him. From the narration of the aforesaid history of the case, it is obvious that the petitioner who was not personally served, could not possible get any information about the dates fixed in the application by the learned Rent Controller, as he (the petitioner) was in England. The learned counsel for the respondent admits that according to the information of Shrimati Kartar Kaur, he is still in England. Publication of proclamation in 'The Tribune' could not possibly reach his hands in England. The affixation of the notice at some open space or the proclamation by that of drum in the locality, known as Raghomajra, could not possibly impart any information to the petitioner about the date (s) fixed in the application. Therefore, on the said state of things, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the substituted service resorted to, cannot be treated as due service on the petitioner, and the same could not possibly transmit any knowledge to him about the institution of the application, or the dates fixed therein. In that view of the matter, it has to be concluded that he was not served in the application and the ex parte proceedings taken against him were without jurisdiction, for the obvious reason that he was unheard and he was not given any opportunity to defend himself, so, in these circumstances the impugned order cannot be upheld, and this petition succeeds.