SANT RAM Vs. RAJ BHARDWAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C .M. No. 14974-CII of 2005 : Copy of the order dated 21.11.2000 (Annexure P-6) attached with the C.M. is taken on record. The C.M. stands disposed of. C.R. No. 3635 of 2005 : This revision petition has been filed under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 ('Act' for short) by the tenant-petitioner against the order dated 14.6.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana whereby the application of the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('CPC' for short) for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 16.1.2003 and the order dated 21.11.2000 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana whereby the petitioner was proceeded against ex parte has been dismissed.

(2.) THE landlady-respondent Smt. Raj Bhardwaj filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act seeking ejectment of the tenant-petitioner from the tenanted premises which is part of property No. B-IV-1544 situated in the area of Mishran Street, Ludhiana as detailed in the head note of the petition. The husband of the landlady-respondent, namely, Ramesh Kant Bhardwaj alias Ranbir (since deceased) rented out the portion of the property to the tenant- petitioner for residential purposes only and a lease agreement was duly executed between him and the tenant-petitioner on 25.6.1977. The rent of the premises was Rs. 150/- per month. Thereafter, the tenant-petitioner is stated to have forcibly occupied some other portion of the property and started claiming the same also as part of the tenancy. The rent was increased to Rs. 400/- per month so as to avoid any dispute in respect of the demised premises. The landlady-respondent filed the ejectment petition alleging that the tenant-petitioner has not tendered arrears of rent and that he was in arrears since 1.1.1993 @ Rs. 400/- p.m. Besides, he was under an obligation to pay house tax. It was also alleged that the tenant-petitioner was guilty of committing change of user. Besides, the demised premises had outlived its age and had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Moreover, the demised premises were required by the landlady for her own personal use and occupation and for the family members.

(3.) DURING the pendency of the case of the tenant-petitioner absented himself on 21.11.2000. The learned Rent Controller accordingly passed the following order :-