RAJPAL Vs. GURDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAJPAL petitioner has filed the present revision under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the order passed by Rent Controller, Nawanshahr on 6.2.2007, whereby petition under Section 13-B of the Act filed by Gurdev Singh-landlord for ejectment/eviction of the petitioner from the shop was allowed.

(2.) AS is clear from the impugned judgment and other documents brought on record Gurdev Singh-landlord filed the petition under Section 13-B of the Act by describing him to be a specified landlord and thus, sought eviction of Rajpal-tenant in a summary manner. On 16.1.2006, learned Rent Controller summoned the tenant to appear before it within 15 days of the service thereof and to obtain the leave of the said Court to contest the application for eviction. The summons were received by Ajay Kumar, son of Rajpal-tenant, on 23.1.2006. Under these circumstances, Rajpal was required to move the learned Rent Controller on or before 7.2.2006 for leave to contest. However, according to him, he was informed by his son on 8.2.2006 about the Process Server having taken his signatures on some paper. He filed an application on 9.2.2006 before the Rent Controller under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the application for leave to contest. He pleaded in the said application that he himself was never served personally in the case and was told by his minor son Ajay Kumar on 3.2.2006 about the service of summons upon him. Said Ajay Kumar was minor, being born on 2.11.1989 and, thus, on 23.1.2006, he was 16 years and two months old. Therefore, service of summons on him was not a proper service. However, the trial Court rejected the application of the tenant for condonation of delay in applying for leave contest by holding that it was not maintainable. Besides, no sufficient cause was shown for the condonation. The trial Court also dismissed the application for leave to contest and therefore, went on to proceed with the decision of the ejectment petition and allowed the same vide impugned order.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that his son Ajay Kumar was only 16 years and two months of age on 23.1.2006 when summons were received by him on behalf of his father, i.e., the petitioner. Said Ajay Kumar, being minor, did not know the niceties of law and told about this fact to the petitioner only on 7.2.2006. There was, thus, sufficient ground for condonation of delay in filing the application for leave to contest. Learned counsel also referred to Section 18-A of the Act in contending that the summons were required to be served upon the tenant or his agent empowered to accept the service but the service on the son of the tenant was not proper.