SUKHDEV SINGH Vs. MAHORTH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mahorth Singh landlord had filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, seeking eviction of the tenant. Vide order (Annexure P-2) dated 21st August, 2001, Rent Controller had ordered ex-parte ejectment of the petitioner tenant. An application (Annexure P-3) was filed by Sukhdev Singh under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC, praying that ex-parte decree be set aside. It was stated in the application that Sukhdev Singh was not served in any manner whatsoever, no Process Server ever approached him with the summons of the Court nor any substituted service was effected and that he never refused to accept the service of the summons. It was further stated by Sukhdev Singh that he is owner in possession of the disputed property from the last more than 40 years and no question arises of his being a sub-tenant under respondent No. 1 Mahorth Singh. It was stated that the ejectment order was passed on 21st August, 2001. It was further stated that when Mahorth Singh came to take possession, he learnt about the ex-parte decree and therefore, the application was filed within limitation on 10th April, 2002.

(2.) THE application for setting aside ex-parte order was rejected vide impugned order dated 22nd July, 2008. The Court held that from the oral evidence adduced, applicant Sukhdev Singh has failed to prove sufficient grounds for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 21st August, 2001. The application was not maintainable as it was filed after a period of one year and otherwise also the same was not maintainable in the present form.

(3.) A tenant cannot be evicted without affording reasonable opportunity to defend his case. Fair play demands that sufficient opportunity should be granted to him to project his case before the Rent Controller. Accordingly, present revision petition is accepted and the order dated 21st August, 2001 passed by the Rent Controller whereby eviction of the tenant was ordered ex parte is set aside. Parties are directed to appear before the Rent Controller on 15th January, 2009. However, in this case the landlord ought to be compensated, in order to balance the equities. Mr. Sandhir states that he is ready to pay the costs. Costs is assessed at Rs. 5,000/-. Same be paid on the date of appearance before the Rent Controller. On deposit of the cost, Rent Controller may decide the eviction petition on merits, preferably within nine months after the receipt of certified copy of this order. With these observations, present revision petition is allowed. Petition allowed.