TARA CHAND Vs. SHEO PARSHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord-respondent filed an application under Section 13 of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act') against the tenant-petitioner in the Court of the learned Rent Controller, Ambala for his eviction on the ground that he has neither paid nor tendered rent for the period 1.8.1983 to 31.7.1986. Notice of this application was issued to the petitioner. He was served on 15.9.1986. He was required to appear in Court on 21.10.1986. He, however, did not appear in response to the summons on that date. Therefore, the learned Rent Controller took ex parte proceedings against him.

(2.) A week thereafter, the petitioner filed an application on 28.10.1986 for seting aside the ex parte proceedings. He alleged that the notice of the Court which he had received had been misplaced. He was under the wrong impression that the date of hearing was 25.10.1986 but when he came to the Court on that date he learnt that he had been proceeded against ex parte on 21.10.1986. He sought setting aside the ex parte proceedings. The prayer was opposed by the respondent who filed his reply to the application on 28.11.1986. Vide order dated 9.3.1987 the learned Rent Controller dismissed the application of the petitioner. Aggrieved against the same, he has filed the present revision petition.

(3.) THE question, therefore, is whether the order of the learned Rent Controller proceeding against him ex parte on 21.10.1986 could be of any legal consequence. In my view, the learned Rent Controller took the proceedings as if they were in a suit in accordance with the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure. Non-appearance of the defendant on the date fixed entails proceedings to be taken ex parte against him. However, Section 13(2)(i) and the first proviso thereto contains a beneficial provision which has to be interpreted in favour of the tenant so as to save him from any action in which on mere technical grounds he might be evicted from the premises. As laid down in Sham Lal's case (supra), before the tenant is expected to tender or deposit the rent, the Rent Controller is to assess the costs and according to the aforesaid proviso to Section 13(2)(i) of the Act he is also to calculate the interest. If that is not done of the date fixed, it cannot be treated as the first hearing nor can the period of 15 days be calculated from the said date. It has not been disputed before me that till today the costs have not been assessed nor the interest has been calculated by the learned Rent Controller. The proceedings taken against the petitioner ex parte are, therefore, of no legal consequence.