ROOP LAL Vs. ARYA SAMAJ SABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition has been filed on behalf of petitioner-tenant (hereinafter referred to as 'tenant') for quashing and setting aside order, dated 28th August, 2017, passed by Rent Controller, Rajgarh in Rent Petition No. 1/2 of 2011, titled as Arya Samaj Sabha v. Sh. Roop Lal , with further prayer to grant an opportunity to cross-examine the respondent's-landlord's (hereinafter referred to as 'landlord') witnesses who were examined ex-parte on 28th August, 2017 before the Rent Controller.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record placed on record as well as certified copy of order sheets of Rent Controller with effect from 10th August, 2017 to 6th January, 2018 produced by learned counsel for the landlord.

(3.) Landlord has filed an eviction petition against tenant which is pending adjudication before the Rent Controller. It has been pleaded on behalf of the tenant that on 10th August, 2017, he had changed the counsel after taking no objection from previous counsel Mr. R.S. Thakur for conducting his case before the Rent Controller and engaged counsel, namely Mr. R.L. Kaushal and Ms. Neelam Gupta, Advocates, mainly practicing at Solan and Mr. Aditya Thakur, Advocate, High Court, Shimla. On that date, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC (2) CPC was also filed by the tenant which was fixed for filing reply on 28th August, 2017. On the same day (10th August, 2017), main matter was ordered to be listed for recording statements of witnesses of landlord on 25th August, 2017, but, due to inadvertent mistake, the newly engaged counsel noted down the date of hearing of the rent petition on 28th August, 2017 as the matter was listed for filing reply of the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC on the said date. On 28th August, 2017, counsel for the tenant did not come from Solan/Shimla to Rajgarh under bona fide belief that on that day, reply to the application was to be filed by the landlord and tenant was present in person to receive the reply, when he came to know that the case was also fixed for recording statements of landlord's witnesses.