ARVIND KUMAR Vs. RADHEY SHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RADHEY Sham filed an application for ejectment against his tenant Anand Parkash. When notice was received by the legal representatives of the tenant, in the name of the tenant, they put in appearance and brought it to the notice of the Rent Controller that the tenant was not heard of for several years and, therefore, they should be impleaded as respondents to the eviction petition; and should be allowed to deposit the arrears of rent alongwith costs and interest. Their prayer was declined by the Rent Controller and in this behalf remained unsuccessful upto the High Court. However, the Supreme Court by order dated 15th April, 1985, ordered that they should be impleaded as parties and allowed four weeks time to deposit the rent. On 13th May, 1985, the legal representatives of the tenant filed an application dated 10th May, 1985 before the Rent Controller mentioning all detailed facts which contained reply to the ejectment petition as well. Notice of the application was issued to the landlord for 3rd June, 1985, and ultimately the landlord filed amended ejectment application on 17th September 1985, in which the legal representatives of the original tenant were impleaded as parties. The case was posted for filing of written statement for 27th September, 1985, and the matter was adjourned to 4th October, 1985. On 4th October, 1985, on behalf the legal representatives of the tenant, it was argued that the application dated 10th May, 1985, be treated as written statement to the amended ejectment application. The matter was fixed for replication for 11th October, 1985. The landlord did not file any replication and instead on 4th November, 1985 filed an application that since no written statement has been filed by the legal representatives of the original tenant, their defence be struck off. The legal representatives contested the application of the landlord and struck off the defence of the tenant on the reasoning that application dated 10the May, 1985 could not be considered as the written statement, as it was simply an application for impleading them as parties, and ordered for the recording of the ex parte evidence. This revision is directed against the aforesaid order.

(2.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that the Rent Controller acted illegally and with material irregularity in passing the impugned order. It is true that the application dated 10th May, 1985 was not in a proper form but it did contain all material facts which the legal representatives wanted to take in defence to the application for ejectment. Instead of striking off the defence, the Rent Controller would have been well advised in directing the legal representatives to file written statement in proper form, containing the very pleas, which were raised in application dated 10th May, 1985, instead of resorting to pass harsh order like striking off the defence. The Rent Controller should have kept the interest of justice in view instead of the technicality.

(3.) THE parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Rent Controller on 12th February, 1987. Appeal allowed.