HARI KISHAN DAS Vs. DALJIT KAUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Hari Kishan Dass petitioner-landlord sought ejectment of the respondents from the house, in dispute, inter alia on the ground that the premises had been lying closed for about a year and that respondents Nos. 1 to 3 have ceased to occupy the same for a continuous period of more than four months without sufficient cause. Respondents Nos. 1 and 3, i.e., Smt. Daljit Kaur and Jagjit Singh (mother and son) respectively, were duly ordered to be proceeded against ex parte on 21-7-1983. The petition was contested by respondent No. 2 Manjit Singh, brother of Jagjit Singh and son of Daljit Kaur. During the pendency of the ejectment-application, counsel for the parties made a statement on 23-3-1984 that some one should be appointed as referee to report whether some one was residing in the house, in dispute, or not, at that time, and if he reported that none was residing in the house, in dispute, ejectment orders should be passed against the respondents and if some one residing in that house then the application should be treated as dismissed. Necessary report dated 23-3-1984 was made by the referee wherein it was found that the house, in dispute, at that time was not being used for residential purposes for a long period. In spite of that, the learned Rent Controller did not pass the ejectment order as per the statement made by the counsel earlier. However, the matter came in this Court in Civil Revision No. 1527 of 1985 which was decided on 10-10-1985. In this Court, all the three respondents, i.e., Daljit Kaur and her two sons Jagjit Singh and Manjit Singh, were duly represented by the counsel. After bearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court directed the Rent Controller to pass necessary orders in view of the report dated 23-3-1984 of the referee and the parties were directed to appear before the Rent Controller on 4-11-1985. According to the said direction of this Court, the Rent Controller, vide its order dated 4-11-1985 passed the necessary orders of ejectment of the respondents from the premises, in dispute. Feeling aggrieved against the said order of the Rent Controller, Manjit Singh filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. However, cross-objections were filed on behalf of his brother Jagjit Singh and their mother Daljit Kaur. It was alleged before the Appellate Authority that since they were proceeded against ex parte, no order of ejectment could be passed against them on the basis of the report of the referee. This argument prevailed with the learned Appellate Authority. Consequently, it set aside the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller and sent the case back to decide the same afresh in accordance with law, vide order dated 6-9-1986. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord has filed this petition in this Court.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the earlier judgment of this Court in Civil Revision No. 1527 of 1985, the learned Rent Controller passed the order of ejectment against all the respondents but the same has been set aside illegally by the Appellate Authority. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that at the most the report of the referee may be an admission against one of the respondents (Tenants) who agreed to the appointment of the referee but was not binding on others.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the earlier order of this Court passed in Civil Revision No. 1527 of 1985 is binding on the parties. The said order was passed in the presence of all the respondents, i.e. tenants. Therefore, they could not be allowed to reagitate the same in appeal before the Appellate Authority. The whole approach of the Appellate Authority in this behalf is wholly erroneous and misconceived. The matter stands concluded by the earlier order of this Court dated 10-10-1985.