LEKH RAJ TEKRA Vs. NEENA MITTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order dated 15.1.2011 passed by the learned Rent Controller whereby he rejected the application filed by the Petitioner under Order 9, Rule 7 read with Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside/recalling the order dated 8.12.2010 whereby he was proceeded against ex parte.

(2.) THE Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'landlord') filed an Eviction Petition against the Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the 'tenant'). The tenant was served for 19.6.2010 when counsel appeared on his behalf. The matter was adjourned for filing reply to 4.8.2010. On this date, the Court adjourned the matter without any formal proceedings to 29.10.2010. On 29.10.2010 also, reply was not filed but the case was adjourned to 8.12.2010 and last opportunity was given to the tenant to file reply to the Eviction Petition.

(3.) ONE of the grounds which weighed with the learned Rent Controller was that this application was not filed on 1.1.2011 itself and secondly that last opportunity had already been given to the tenant to file reply and in case he wanted to show his bona fides, he should have filed a copy of the reply alongwith the application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings. In fact, this approach of the learned Rent Controller, in my view, is correct and it cannot be said that anything is wrong in this part of the order. When a party has been given last opportunity to do a particular act and does not appear on that date for any reason then when it wants to get ex parte proceedings or dismissal in default set aside, it must show that it was ready to perform the duties which it was supposed to perform on or before the date when the order was passed against it.