SURJIT SINGH GREWAL Vs. VASUDEO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is landlord's petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below.

(2.) The Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment application vide its order dt. 16th April, 1984 as the landlord failed to pay the costs of Rs.50/- which were awarded vide order dt. 6th Jan. 1984 for adjournment to 16th April, 1984 for producing the remaining evidence of the landlord. It had been stated in the said order that the learned counsel for the landlord made a statement closing his evidence and contended that since the petitioner had not been present, he is not going to pay costs. According to the learned Rent Controller non-payment of costs shall result in precluding the landlord from prosecuting his case any further and as a result thereof the petition was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord filed an appeal. The appellate authority relying upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court reported as Anand Parkash v. Bharat Bhushan Rai. (1981) 83 Pun LR 555 : AIR 1981 Punj and Har 269) dismissed the appeal. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord has filed this petition in this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the view taken in the earlier Full Bench Judgment reported in Anand Parkash's case isuprai was explained in the later Full Bench Judgment reported as Prem Sagar v. Phul Chand, (1983) 85 Pun LR 797 AIR 1983 Punj and Har 3851. It was held therein that on an overall view of the whole S.35-B the resultant effect of the default on the date next following the date of the order of payment of costs the issue having been expressly raised would be that thereafter the defaulting party can no longer be permitted to add anything to its case. The same consequently would have to be decided on the limited material and evidence existing on the record in favour of such a party. The section does not in terms prescribe that either the suit must be dismissed or that the defence be struck down as a whole. Thus, argued the learned counsel, in view of the said Full Bench Judgment, the ejectment application could not be dismissed by the Rent Controller and should have been decided on the basis of the material already on the record. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the tenant submitted that the order passed by the authorities below does not debar the landlord to file fresh ejectment application and therefore, there is no justification for setting aside the impugned order.