MAHABIR SINGH Vs. SUMITRA MIDHA AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent Sumitra Midha and Rajinder Midha filed an application for ejectment of the petitioner Mahabir Singh. An exparte order was made on October, 19, 1973. Mababir Singh filed an application to set aside the ex-parte order on February 25, 1974. The application to set aside ex-parte order was not disposed of for a considerable time. By an order dated April 22, 1976, the Rent Controller set aside the ex-parte order subject to the condition that Mahabir Singh paid costs of Rs. 110/- and deposited a sum of Rs. 4,000/- towards arrears of rent. The amounts were directed to be deposited within a period of one week. Mahabir Singh has filed this Civil Revision Petition claiming that the condition should not have been imposed upon him. A perusal of the order of the Rent Controller shows that he was far from satisfied that there was sufficient cause for setting aside the ex-parte order. He referred to the circumstances that his predecessor had recorded a finding that Mahabir Singh was evading service and had ordered substituted service. He referred to the report received back on the postal acknowledgement that Mahabir Singh was deliberately not accepting the service. He also referred to the service effected through Munadi. The learned counsel for the petitioner says that these facts are borne out by the record and he invited me to peruse the record. The record which is available here is only that which relates to the application for setting aside the ex-parte order. The record pertaining to the service to effected in main application for ejectment must be in the file relating to that application. It is not here. I have, however, no reason to believe that the Rent Controller was drawing from his imagination when he referred to the findings recorded by predecessor and the report accompanying the postal acknowledgement. The Rent Controller seems to have decided the application of Mahabir Singh on the sole ground that he was not served personally. This is certainly not sufficient to set aside the ex-parte order, in view of the finding that Mahabir Singh was evading the service. The argument of the learned counsel was that the condition imposed by the Rent Controller was beyond his competence. I do not agree with this submission. When an ex-parte order is set aside, it is certainly open to the authority setting aside to impose conditions to test the bonafide of the applicant. The condition should not, of course, be onerous. In the circumstances of the case, I am unable to say that the condition imposed by Rent Controller is onerous. The Rent Controller has pointed out that the arrears of rent come to more than Rs. 6,000/- and he has ordered the deposit of Rs. 4,000/- only.