AMRIK SINGH Vs. MUKHTIAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NRI landlord Mukhtiar Singh filed a petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act') for the ejectment of the respondent/tenant (petitioner herein) and to recover immediate possession of the building owned by him situated in Islam Ganj, Ludhiana. The rent application was filed on 12.04.2006. The rented premises is an Atta Chakki run by 15 HP electric connection. The respondent was ex parte. An ex parte eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana on 12.08.2009.

(2.) On 31.01.2011, the petitioner/tenant filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with section 151 CPC for setting aside the ex parte eviction order. Notice was issued on the application and by a detailed order after allowing evidence to be recorded the application has been considered and dismissed finding insufficient grounds to set aside the ex parte eviction order.

(3.) In the past during trial, the Rent Controller had proceeded ex parte after due publication of notice in a newspaper to which the petitioner/tenant did not respond. The grounds set up by the petitioner/tenant regarding non-compliance of the provisions Section 18A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, which require service of application in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Schedule, have been turned down because no effort was made or objection taken during the trial proceedings, which would have put the Rent Controller in a position to consider the application on or before the time of considering request for leave to contest. The Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, acting as Rent Controller, pronounced the order on 04.07.2014 observing that the tenant had not acted with due diligence observing that a person who has slept over his rights is not entitled to any kind of relief. The landlord/respondent could not be disturbed after long lapse of time having secured an order of eviction as an NRI to take immediate possession of the building of his choice, a right to be exercised once in a lifetime. It is not disputed that the ingredients required to grant relief are satisfied in this case. The building was more than 5 years old at the time the action was brought nor had the landlord evicted any tenant from any other building.