KISHAN CHAND Vs. GIAN CHAND KOHLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Gian Chand respondent owns booth No. 47, Sector 16 D, Chandigarh, in occupation of Kishan Chand petitioner at Rs 150 P. M. in addition to water and electricity charges. On April 5, 1977, the respondent filed a petition for ejectment under section 13 of the East Panjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, (hereinafter called the Act) against the petitioner on the sole ground of non-payment of arrears of rent since November 1, 1976. On April 6, 1977, notice was ordered to be issued to the petitioner for May 10, 1977, and the service of the petitioner was effected on May 9, 1977, for the date fixed, on May 10, 1977, counsel for the respondent appeared, but the petitioner did not put in appearance. Ex parte proceedings were, therefore, ordered to be taken against him and the case was adjourned to May 28, 1977, for ex parte evidence. On the same date, the petitioner submitted an application for setting aside the ex parte order and for permission to make the tender at 3-40 P M. This application reads :

(2.) The respondent contested the application of the petitioner for setting aside the ex parte order and the learned Rent Controller framed the following issue :

(3.) The learned Rent Controller found the issue against the petitioner and dismissed this application vide order dated July 25, 1978. It is against this order that the present revision is directed. The petitioner has stated in his application that he did not appear in Court in time due to the illness of his mother. He alone appeared as a witness in support of his application wherein he stated that he got late to appear in Court on May 10, 1977. He reached the Court at 2-30 P.M. He had with him the arrears of rent, interest and expenses of the petition for tendering the same. He did not state anything further in his examination-in-chief. He was cross examined wherein he stated that his mother was ill for the last 1-1/2 week and she was under treatment in the P.G.I. and Civil Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh. He did not know the doctor who attended on his mother. It was within the knowledge of his younger brother. He denied the suggestion that his mother was not ill and he did not put in aprearance because he could not pay the arrears of rent etc. The respondent appeared as his own witness. He stated that he was present on May 10, 1977 when his case was taken up. He had seen the petitioner sitting outside the Court on that date. He did not appear when the case was called after lunch interval. In his cross-examination he stated that he remained present in the Court till 3-00 P.M.