HARNEK SINGH Vs. PARAMJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in a rent petition, filed for eviction of the respondent from the shop in dispute, has approached this court challenging the order dated 4.12.2007 (Annexure P-6), whereby the application filed by the respondent for leave to defend the petition has been accepted.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts are that the petitioner filed a petition seeking eviction of the respondent from the tenanted premises under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short,'the Rent Act'). It was claimed by the petitioner that he is NRI. As he has completed 55 years of age, he wanted to settle at Jalandhar permanently in some business and the shop-cum-flat in possession of the respondent as tenant is the most suitable premises. The premises is required for his personal use and occupation and he did not possess any other residential or non-residential premises in Municipal Limits of Jalandhar. As his request to the respondent to vacate the premises was not acceded to, the petition came to be filed. The respondent after appearance filed application for leave to defend. The same having been allowed, the petitioner is before this court.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in the present case the respondent had put in appearance on 9.8.2006 for the first time and within 15 days thereof on 24.8.2006 the application for leave to defend was filed, which was within limitation. He submitted that application was filed on 23.8.2006 and not on 24.8.2006. He further submitted that in terms of Article 123 of the Limitation Act, the limitation of 30 days starts from the date of the ex parte decree and when it is the case of the defendant that summons was not duly served, the period of limitation for moving an application for setting aside an ex parte decree starts from the date of the knowledge of the ex parte decree. Accordingly, the limitation for filing the application to leave to defend cannot be counted from the date when the service was effected through munadi. He further submitted that he has good grounds on merits to defend the eviction petition filed by the petitioner, which is not bona fide and the object is just to get the premises vacated from the respondent.