ANIL KUMAR JAIN Vs. ARUN KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-non applicant (for short, 'the non applicant1) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 25.11.2019 passed by the Rent Tribunal, whereby the applications filed by the non applicant under Order 9 Rule 7 read with Section 151 CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act have been dismissed.

(2.) Facts of the case are that the respondent-applicant (for short, 'the applicant1) filed an eviction petition against the non applicants. On 2.1.2013, notices were issued to the non applicants. On 10.1.2013, the process server reached at the residence of non applicant no.3, but since he was not found at his address, the process server affixed the notice at the outer door of locked house of non applicant no.3 in the presence of witnesses. In this view of the matter, the Rent Tribunal vide its order dated 15.1.2013 treated service of notice on non applicant no. 3 as sufficient and due to his non appearance, ex-parte proceedings were initiated against him on the same date. The non applicant filed applications under Order 9 Rule 7 read with Section 151 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which came to be dismissed by the Rent Tribunal vide its order dated 25.11.2019. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the non applicant submits that on 26.4.2019, when the non applicant appeared before the Rent Tribunal in another matter, he was informed by the Clerk of his advocate that his case was being called out in the Tribunal. He further submits that neither the notice was served on the non applicant nor his partners informed him in this regard because the non applicant is having disputes with his partners. When the non applicant came to know about the ex-parte proceedings, he immediately engaged an advocate and inspected the file on 29.4.2019. On 1.5.2019, his advocate applied for the certified copies, which were made available to him on 14.5.2019. In this way, the application under Order 9 Rule 7 read with Section 151 CPC was filed, which although was within limitation, but even then application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed seeking condonation of delay. However, the Rent Tribunal erred while dismissing the same vide order dated 25.11.2019. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set-aside.