DEV DUTT SOOD Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An ex parte order for ejectment of the petitioner was passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh. The petitioner filed an application for the restoration of the proceedings and also challenged the ex parte order by filing an appeal. When the appeal came up before the learned Appellate Authority, the petitioner made a statement that he did not wish to prosecute the same and would pursue the application for restoration pending before the learned Rent Controller. The appeal filed by him was dismissed as withdrawn. When the application for restoration came up for hearing before the learned Rent Controller, he dismissed the same on the ground that since the appeal against his order had been dismissed by the Appellate Authority, he was by then not invested with the jurisdiction to order the restoration of the case.

(2.) When a matter is decided ex parte against a litigant, he has two remedies namely : one for getting that matter restored by applying to the original Court and secondly, by challenging the order passed by the original Court by filing an appeal. Both these remedies can be availed of by the litigant side by side. Mere dismissal of the appeal, especially in the circumstances explained in this case, did not divest the learned Rent Controller of the jurisdiction to decide the application for restoration of the case on merits. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the case is remanded to the learned Rent Controller for decision in accordance with law subject to the condition that the petitioner pays entire arrears of rent on the next date of hearing. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned Rent Controller on January 22, 1979. In case the arrears of rent are not paid on that day the revision petition would be deemed to have been dismissed.