RAM RATTAN Vs. BENI PARSHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant's revision against the order of the Appellate Authority maintaining the order of the Rent Controller who had dismissed the application of the tenant for setting aside the ex parte ejectment order passed against him. The facts of the case show that the tenant has been purposely avoiding tender or payment of arrears of rent inspite of opportunities and as such nothing can be done for him in this revision.

(2.) An application for ejectment was filed against the tenant on 11th November, 1976 on the ground of arrears of rents from 21st February, 1974. He was served in that application for 10th December, 1976 but in spite of service he did not appear. According to proviso to Section 13 (2) (i) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, the tenant was obliged to deposit the arrears of rent within fifteen days of the first date of hearing which was 10th December, 1976 but he failed to comply with the proviso. Later on he filed an application for setting aside the proceedings dated 10th December, 1976, which prayer of his was allowed by the Rent Controller vide his order dated 11th Match, 1977. According to law the moment the ex parte proceedings are set aside, that day is considered as the first date of hearing and as such the tenant was obliged to deposit all the arrears of rent within a period of fifteen days thereafter and for that purpose the Rent Controller adjourned the case to 25th of March, 1977 and inspite of that no deposit was made by him within the requisite period. After 25th of March, 1977, the case was adjourned to 1st April, 1977 and instead of depositing the rent or putting in appearance, adjournment was sought on his behalf on the ground of his illness. The Rent Controller allowed the adjournment and fixed 21st of April, 1977 for further proceedings of the case. On 21st of April, 1977 the tenant neither tendered the rent nor put in appearance, and after ordering ex pane proceedings against him, an order of ejectment was passed by the Rent Controller. Against the aforesaid ex parte order of ejectment an application was moved by the tenant for setting it aside which was dismissed by the Rent Controller on 17th June, 1977 on the ground that the application was barred by limitation. It would be useful to maintain that before the Rent Controller the counsel for the tenant admitted that the application was beyond the period of limitation.

(3.) The tenant filed no appeal against the ex parte ejectment order dated 21st April, 1977 and instead filed an appeal only against order dated 17th June, 1977 by which the Rent Controller had refused to set aside the ex parte ejectment on the ground that the application was barred by limitation. The Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal of the tenant on the aforesaid facts by order dated 7th of October, 1977 against which the tenant has come to this Court in revision.