BISHAN SARUP Vs. LALITA GULATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision has been directed against order dated 13.12.1995 whereby application filed by the tenant, namely, Lalita Gulati, under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the ex parte ejectment order dated 23.9.1992 has been allowed.

(2.) It is the common case of the parties that respondent-Lalita Gulati is tenant under the petitioner. An ejectment application was filed against her and ex parte ejectment order was passed against her on 23.9.1992. She filed an application on 23.1.1993 for setting aside the ex parte order on the ground that she had not been served in the petition and a false report had been served in the petition and a false report had been obtained of her service for obtaining an order of ejectment by misleading the Court. She alleged in her application that her counsel who had been appearing in another ejectment application, came to know about passing of order dated 23.9.1992 on 22.1.1993 and immediately on the very next day, he made an application for setting aside of the same. After inviting the reply, the Rent Controller gave opportunity to parties to lead evidence and on appreciation of the evidence brought on record, has returned a finding that the tenant had no knowledge of the ejectment proceedings nor she was duly served. It is the admitted case of the petitioners that the tenant was ordered to be served by Munadi and affixation. Sikander Singh, process-server while appearing in Court as R.W-2 stated that Naresh Kumar, Tin beater while effecting Munai, only beat the tin but made no proclamation by word of his mouth. From this statement, the Rent Controller has rightly come to the conclusion that it was not due and sufficient service. The discretion having been exercised in accordance with law and being not perverse, no interference is called for in revisional jurisdiction. I am not prepared to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the tenant is residing in Calcutta, the ex parte proceedings should not be set aside. In order to set aside the ex parte decree, the Rent Controller was required only to determine as to whether tenant had been served in accordance with law or not and having found that tenant had not been served in accordance with law, the contention that the tenant is residing in Calcutta presently, is of no consequence. Tenant had a right to be heard in a petition brought against her for ejectment and if an ex parte order has been passed without following the procedure, the Rent Controller has a duty to set aside the same.

(3.) Accordingly, the present civil revision being without any merit, has to be dismissed and it is so ordered.