BRIJ LAL Vs. SHIV MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller dated 15.6.1988, whereby the application for setting aside the ex-parte eviction order filed on behalf of the tenant Brij Lal petitioner was dismissed. The landlord Shiv Mohan and others filed an ejectment application against their tenant Brij Lal on 22.12.1981. The ejectment was sought, inter-alia, on the ground of non-payment of rent with effect from 1.3.1979 to 22.12.81 at the rate of Rs. 70/- per month amounting to Rs. 4100/-. When the tenant refused to accept service and failed to appear in spite of proclamation he was proceeded against ex-parte by order dated 12.2.1982. Ex-parte eviction order was passed against him on 1.9.1982. The tenant filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte order on 19.11.1982. According to the averment made therein the tenant had never refused to accept service nor any registered acknowledgement due was sent to him to inform him about the date of hearing. He further pleaded that no Munadi was effected and the report about it was false. It was also pleaded that the address was not correctly mentioned in the rent application nor he was duly served. He came to know of the ex-parte order only on 17.11.1982 and immediately thereafter he moved the present application which was within time. In the reply filed on behalf of the landlords the allegations made therein were controverted. It was pleaded that the tenant had intentionally and purposely refused to accept summons because he was not in a position to pay the rent demanded therein. It was further pleaded that the report of the process server was duly attested by a witness who was residing in the neighbourhood and the copies of the summons and plaint were thereafter affixed on the tenanted premises, but still the tenant had not cared to cause his appearance in the Court. Not only that, thereafter when the tenant refused to accept service the Court had ordered that the tenant be served through proclamation by Munadi which was duly effected but still he failed to appear and tender the rent claimed. It was also pleaded that the application was barred by time as the tenant had the knowledge of the ex-parte order much earlier. The learned Rent Controller after framing the issues allowed the parties to lead evidence. From the evidence produced by the parties, he came to the conclusion that it was amply established that the tenant had intentionally and purposely refused to accept the summons and the copy of the plaint, which were later on affixed at the premises and he did not bother to appear even after the proclamation by beat of drum near his premises. The learned Rent Controller also observed that it did not appeal to him that all the Govt. officials had made false reports to help the landlords and further the attesting witnesses had come forward to unduly side with the landlords particularly when according to the tenant the attesting witnesses had no ill-will or grudge to falsely depose against him. The application was also held to be barred by time. Consequently, the application was dismissed vide impugned order dated 15.6.1988.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner submitted that the address given in the ejectment application was not correct and the landlords did not furnish registered A.D. cover for his services as ordered by the Rent Controller and that being so there was no valid service on him and ex-parte order was liable to be set aside. In support of this contention, he referred to Shiv Dayal v. Ishwar Dass, 1984 H.R.R. 355.

(3.) HOWEVER , the tenant is allowed one month's time to vacate the premises provided all the arrears of rent upto date and advance rent for one month is deposited with the Rent Controller within a forthnight. Petition dismissed.