SUNITA DEVI Vs. ARUN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been directed against the order, dated 30.3.2011 passed by learned Rent Controller (4), Shimla in case No. 57 -2 of 02/98. The revision has been filed by tenant, who has been impleaded as respondent No. 3 in the rent petition before the Rent Controller.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that respondents No. 1 to 4 have filed petition against respondents No. 5 to 7 and petitioner under Section 14 of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (for short, the Act) for their ejectment from building No. 139 -140, one floor in 4th floor, Lower Bazar, Shimla on the ground that building is quite old, condition of the building further deteriorated when the building was gutted in fire on 25.11.1996. The landlords want to carry out building and rebuilding work of the building which cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated by the tenants. The building is required bonafide by the landlords for carrying out building, rebuilding and reconstruction work. The plan of the building has already been sanctioned by municipal corporation, Shimla on 2.12.1996.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties andhave also gone through the record. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that learned Rent Controller has dismissed the application on the ground of limitation and also that application is malafide. The learned counsel has submitted that no limitation is provided for filing an application for setting aside ex parte order under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC and, therefore, the residuary Art. 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 will apply for filing an application for setting aside ex parte order. He has contended that observation of the learned Rent Controller that application is malafide has not been substantiated with reasons. He has relied Delhi DevelopmentAuthority vs. Shanti Devi and another AIR 1982 Delhi 159 in support of his submissions. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4 has supported the impugned order and has submitted that no case has been made out by the petitioner for interference. The learned Rent Controller has exercised the jurisdiction properly. He has prayed for dismissal of the revision petition.