NAUMI RAM Vs. BHUPINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT Bhupinder Singh is the landlord of the house in question in which Naumi Ram, now represented by his legal representatives was the tenant. The landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, (for short "the Act") against Naumi Ram for ejectment. Naumi Ram filed a petitioner under Section 8 of the Act against the landlord. In the ejectment application, Naumi Ram filed reply wherein he mentioned that proceedings under Section 8 of the Act are pending in the court of Shri Harjit Singh, Rent Controller, Ludhiana, against the present respondent. In the petition filed by Naumi Ram, the landlord was proceeded against ex parte and ultimately the said petition was accepted ex parte by order dated 24. 7. 1981. The landlord filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex parte order dated 24. 7. 1981 alleging that he was not duly served in the petition and that he acquired knowledge of the ex parte order only on 3. 8. 1984 and thereafter he filed the present application on 29. 8. 1984. Learned Rent Controller, after framing issues and recording evidence produced by the respective parties, dismissed the application by his order dated 5. 6. 1990. Learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the respondent herein was duly served and the application for setting the ex parte order was filed beyond the period of limitation as he had acquired knowledge of the proceedings in petition Under Section 8 of the Act in December, 1980 when Naumi Ram filed reply to the petition Under Section 13 filed by the landlord.

(2.) FEELING aggrieved by the order of the learned Rent Controller, the landlord filed appeal. Appeal was accepted and consequently the ex parte order dated 24. 7. 1981 and the order dated 5. 6. 1990 were set aside by the appellate authority by order dated 2. 8. 1991. Learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that no legal service was effected on the respondent-landlord and there was a good and sufficient cause for setting aside the ex parte order. Learned Appellate Authority rejected the plea of the present petitioners that the application for setting aside the ex parte order was filed beyond the period of limitation. It came to the conclusion that on the date i. e. 18. 12. 1980 when the respondent is allege to have acquired knowledge through the reply filed by the tenants to the ejectment petition, the ex parte order passed on 24. 7. 1981 had not come into existence and, therefore, it could not be said that the landlord had the knowledge of the ex parte order passed in petition Under Section 8 of the Act against him. Hence, this petition at the instance of the legal representative of Naumi Ram.

(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and going through impugned order, I am of the opinion that this petition has no merit and deserves to be dismissed. The appellate authority has noticed in the impugned order that on the summons of Munadi, it was clearly reported by the Process Server in his report dated 10. 9. 1981/11. 9. 1981, that whereabout of Bhupinder Singh were inquired at his address at Ludhiana and it was told by the residents of the locality that he lives at Ferozepur. Learned appellate authority on the basis of this report thus concluded that the Munadi, if effected at Ludhiana address of the respondent is meaningless and it could not be said that he was validly and legally served in the petition by way of substituted service on the basis of that Munadi. Bhupinder Singh while appearing as his own witness before the Rent Controller categorically deposed that he owned property and residential house in village Ghiniwala in District Ferozepur and that he was living there since 1940. His statement was fully corroborated by Satish Chander, Sarpanch, of the village of the respondent. Not only this, he also produced in evidence the copies of his ration card, arms licence and even the voter list evidencing the fact that he was residing at his Ferozepur address. The petitioners could not controvert the evidence led by the present respondent by any evidence. In this view of the matter, learned Rent Controller was not right in coming to the conclusion that the respondent was duly served.