ONKAR SINGH Vs. MANPREET KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are aggrieved of order dtd. 17/8/2017 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandigarh whereby application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside exparte order dtd. 18/3/2016 and exparte judgment dtd. 20/9/2016 has been dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that impugned order dtd. 17/8/2017 is unjustified, unwarranted and liable to be set aside. Present petition had been filed by the respondent-landlords seeking eviction of the petitioners solely on the ground of non-payment of rent from 12/1/2012 till 31/1/2013. It is submitted that during the pendency of the present rent petition, another rent petition i.e. Rent Petition No. 1290 of 2011 filed by the respondent and landlords, claiming eviction of the petitioners on the ground of personal bonafide necessity was allowed by the learned Rent Controller on 31/7/2015. Appeal against decision dtd. 31/7/2015 filed by the present petitioners was pending before the learned Appellate Authority. In the said proceedings, the entire arrears of rent were deposited by the petitioners on 12/1/2016, which included the period of rent from 12/1/2012 till 31/1/2013 i.e. the subject matter of the present rent petition, which was allowed exparte on 20/9/2016. The said tender was duly accepted by the respondent and landlords in the proceedings before the Appellate Authority i.e. the petitioners' appeal against decision dtd. 31/7/2015. Thereafter, the present rent petition was placed before the Lok Adalat for exploring the possibility of an amicable settlement of the entire dispute on 13/2/2016. However, no compromise could be arrived at. The matter was sent back before the learned Rent Controller. However, the petitioners were under a genuine bonafide belief that once entire arrears stood paid in another petition, the present proceedings would come to an end. Therefore, the petitioners did not appear before the learned Rent Controller on 18/3/2016 and they were proceeded against exparte. Learned Rent Controller vide exparte order dtd. 20/9/2016 allowed the present rent petition filed by the respondents - landlord.

(3.) It was vehemently argued that the petitioners had been regularly appearing in the proceedings in the instant case before the matter was sent to the Lok Adalat on 13/2/2016, after payment of entire arrears of rent in the other proceedings. Some witnesses were also examined on behalf of the present petitioners (respondents in the rent petition). It is only due to genuine bona fide belief that once the entire agreed rent including mesne profits as assessed by the learned appellate authority in parallel proceedings initiated by the respondents - landlord was deposited and duly accepted by the landlord, the present eviction petition based solely on the ground of non-payment of rent would come to an end. Learned Rent Controller, it is submitted has ignored these vital aspects and wrongly dismissed the application under order Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. It is, thus, prayed that this petition be allowed and the impugned order dtd. 17/8/2017 be set aside, consequently, setting aside order exparte order dtd. 18/3/2016 as well as exparte judgment dtd. 20/9/2016.