VIRENDER KUMAR Vs. RAM GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the tenant under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 against the order dated 23.3.2004, passed by the Rent Controller, Hisar, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 3.10.2002 has been dismissed.

(2.) IN this case, an ejectment application was filed by the respondent-landlord against the petitioner in the year 2001 on the ground of non-payment of rent. Pursuant to the notice issued, the petitioner appeared in the said case on 18.0.2002 and sought time to tender the arrears of rent. On his request, the case was adjourned to 26.9.2002. On 26.9.2002, the rent was not tendered and a date was requested, which was not opposed and the case was adjourned to 30.9.2002 for tendering the rent. On 30.9.2002, rent was not tendered. Again a date was requested, which was not opposed and the case was adjourned to 1.10.2002 for tendering the rent. On 1.10.2002, again the rent was not tendered and a date was requested, which was again not opposed and the case was adjourned to 3.10.2002 for tendering the rent. On 3.10.2002, the following order was passed :-

(3.) THE Rent Controller has dismissed the application while observing that as per the case of the petitioner, he himself appeared on 18.9.2002 and sought time to tender the rent. On 26.9.2002 as well as on 30.9.2002, he did not tender the rent and the case was further adjourned. In spite of four dates, he did not tender the rent and on 3.10.2002, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner. The Rent Controller has further observed that the petitioner is Clerk of an Advocate working in the Court and it cannot be taken that he was not aware of the consequences of not tendering the rent and not appearing in the court. The Rent Controller did not believe the story given by the petitioner.