DEEPAK CHOPRA Vs. DEEPAK GULATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition which is purported to have been filed under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short "the Act") is for quashing/setting aside orders dated 23.2.2008 (Annexure P-4) and 31.07.2008 (Annexure P-7) passed by learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar, vide which his ejectment application and the application filed for restoration of the ejectment application, respectively, were dismissed.

(2.) THE petitioner landlord filed the ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Act for the ejectment of the respondents from the property consisting of H.No. 288, situated in village Dakoha, District Jalandhar, which was dismissed in default for his non-appearance on 29.4.2006. He filed an application for restoration of the ejectment petition which was allowed by learned Rent Controller vide order dated 25.1.2008 and the ejectment application was ordered to be restored subject to payment of Rs. 500/- as costs. No one appeared on his behalf on 23.2.2008 as a result of which the application was again dismissed in default. He came up with second application for restoration, which was decided on merits by the learned Rent Controller, vide order dated 31.7.2008. According to the petitioner he had given Rs. 500/-, the costs, to his counsel who could not appear in the Court due to some urgent work at home. He went to the Court of Rent Controller at about 11-00 a.m. and argued on the point regarding assessment of the rent and it was suggested by the Court to wait for the opposite counsel. No prejudice will be caused to the respondents by allowing this revision as the ejectment application is still at its initial stage.

(3.) THE ejectment application was dismissed by the Rent Controller when the petitioner failed to appear before it despite repeated calls. He moved an application for restoration of the ejectment application which was allowed vide order dated 25.1.2008 and the ejectment application was ordered to be restored subject to payment of Rs. 500/- as costs. The proceedings were adjourned to 23.2.2008. On that date, he again absented himself and as a result thereof the ejectment application was dismissed in default under Order 9 Rule 8 CPC. He came up with second application for restoration pleading therein that his counsel had appeared before the Court at about 11-00 a.m. and argued on the point of assessment of rent and the Court suggested to wait for the opposite counsel and thereafter when he approached the Court after lunch, he was not provided with any information about the fate of his case. When his counsel approached the Court on 25.2.2008, he was informed that the application for restoration of the ejectment application was dismissed in default on 23.2.2008. That application was contested by the respondents. After hearing learned counsel for both the sides, learned Rent Controller dismissed the same vide order dated 31.7.2008, by observing that the petitioner was careless and negligent person by not appearing in the Court repeatedly.