AJAY AGGARWAL Vs. NARINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is instituted against order dated 2.5.2013 rendered by learned Rent Controller (7) Shimla in case No. 3 -2 of 2009/06.

(2.) PERTINENT facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner -land lord (hereinafter referred to as 'petitioner' for brevity sake) filed a petition under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, against the original tenant (Avadh Bihari Lal). Issues were framed by the learned Rent Controller on 1.8.2007. Case was thereafter fixed for petitioner's evidence on 8.10.2007. On 16.11.2007, respondent No. 1 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for arraying/impleading the legal heirs of Avadh Bihari Lal (original tenant). Learned Rent Controller allowed the application on 7.1.2008 and ordered impleadment of the legal heirs of late Avadh Bihari Lal. Respondents No. 3 and 5 did not appear before the learned Rent Controller on 7.3.2008. They were proceeded ex parte. Respondents No. 2 and 6 were ordered to be served for 22.5.2008 through ordinary process as well as through registered post. Since respondents No. 2 and 6 could not be served by way of ordinary process as well as through registered post, petitioner filed an application under Order 5 Rule 20 of the Civil Procedure Code for effecting service upon them by way of substituted service. Application was allowed by the learned Rent Controller on 7.6.2008. They were ordered to be served by way of publication on 2.12.2008. Respondents No. 2 and 6, failed to put in appearance and were proceeded ex parte. In the meantime, an application under Order 9 Rule 7 of Civil Procedure Code was filed on behalf of respondents No. 3 to 5 for setting aside ex parte order dated 7.3.2008. Application was allowed by the learned Rent Controller on 9.4.2009. Respondents No. 3 to 5 were relegated to their original position. Application under Order 9 Rule 7 of Civil Procedure Code was filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 for setting aside ex parte order dated 2.12.2008. Application was contested by the petitioner. Learned Rent Controller allowed the application on 2.5.2013, hence this petition.

(3.) MR . Suneet Goel, Advocate has vehemently argued that the learned Rent Controller failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him in a judicious manner. He then contended that respondent No. 2 was duly served by way of publication.