MAHAJAN GENERAL STORE Vs. PIARA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant is in revision petition aggrieved against the order passed by the learned trial Court on 12.11.2005, whereby application to seek setting aside of ex parte ejectment order was dismissed.

(2.) AN ex parte ejectment order was passed on 26.2.1997. The application for setting aside ex parte ejectment order was made on 15.3.1997 on the ground that the petitioner was not served as no process server ever came to effect the service and the landlord got wrong report resulting into ex parte ejectment order. During the pendency of the said application, the petitioner sought amendment of an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 16.5.1999. The said application was declined by the learned Rent Controller. The revision against the said order was also dismissed by this Court on 3.5.2005.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that he learned Rent Controller has not taken into consideration the judgment Exhibit A1, AX and AY inter-parties. The said judgments were relied upon to show that the ejectment sought by the landlord on identical grounds has remained unsuccessful. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Commissioner of Income Tax v. Surindra Singh Pahwa and others, 1995(3) RRR 92 (Allahabad) : 1995(1) Civil Court Cases 682, The Punjab National Bank v. Sita Ram and others, 1991(1) RRR 409 : 1991(1) Civil Court Cases 195, G.P. Srivastava v. R.K. Raizada and others, 2000(2) RCR(Civil) 161 : 2000(1) RCR(Rent) 238 (SC) and M/s. Esquire Property Dealers and another v. Ved Parkash Sardana and others, 2002(1) RCR(Rent) 475 : 2003(1) RCR(Civil) 103 : 2002(1) RLR 418, to contend that the Courts are not to adopt hyper-technical approach while setting aside ex parte order. It is argued that since the petitioner has approached the Court immediately within the statutory time specified, therefore, the discretion should have been exercised in favour of the petitioner.