TILAK RAJ Vs. KEWAL KRISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's revision petition whose application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings has been dismissed by the Rent Controller vide order dated March 22, 1985.

(2.) THE landlord Kewal Krishan filed the judgment (eviction ?) application on February 17, 1984, primarily on the ground of the non-payment of the arrears of rent for the months of December, 1983 and January, 1984. April 2, 1984, was the first date of hearing therein. On that day, the tenant did not appear. However, he filed the application dated April 7, 1984, for setting aside the ex parte proceedings ordered against him on April 2, 1984. It was alleged therein that the copy of the eviction application was not received by him along with summons from the Court. He had gone to Amritsar on March 30, 1984, but could not come back to Chandigarh to attend the Court on April 2, 1984 due to the bus strike and, therefore, his absence on that day was neither intentional nor wilful, but was due to the circumstances beyond his control. That application was contested on behalf of the landlord. It was contended that the copy of the eviction application was sent by registered post. In fact, the tenant did not attend the Court intentionally and wilfully. Ultimately, the Rent Controller, after framing the necessary issues, came to the conclusion tat the tenant was duly served the very day and that he failed to appear in Court without any sufficient cause. In view of this finding the application for setting aside the order dated April 2, 1984, proceeding ex parte against the petitioner, was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the same, he has come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the relevant evidence on the record, I am of the considered opinion that a case has been made out where the absence of the tenant on the first date of hearing on April 2, 1984, could not be held to be intentional or wilful in any manner. The arrears of rent due were only for two months. The application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings was filed within five days of the date of first hearing. There is nothing on the record to prove the case of the landlord that the tenant absented himself on the first date of hearing as he was unable to make the payment of the arrears of rent. Under the circumstances, the approach of the Rent Controller was wrong and illegal. 6. Consequently, this revision petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The application filed on behalf of the tenant for setting aside the ex parte proceedings ordered on April 2, 1984, is also allowed. The parties have been directed to appear before the Rent Controller on May 28, 1985. It has been stated at the bar that the rent for the relevant period has already been paid in the subsequent ejectment application. In case, the arrears of rent have been paid in the subsequent ejectment application as stated at the bar, the landlord will be entitled to the interest and costs therefor, to be assessed by the Rent Controller. In order to make the payment of the interest and costs to be assessed by the Rent Controller, on May 18, 1985, the next date to be fixed shall be the first date of hearing. Revision allowed.