GANGADHAR Vs. MAHENDRA KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner -defendant under Sec. 115 of C.P.C., challenging the order dt. 08.10.2013 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jhalawar (hereinafter referred to as "the appellate Tribunal") in Civil Appeal (Rent Act) No. 07/2012, whereby the appellate Tribunal has dismissed the appeal, and confirmed the order dt. 29.08.2012 passed by the Rent Tribunal, dismissing the application being No. 07/2012 under Order IX Rule 7 & 13 for setting aside the ex -parte decree dt. 09.04.2012 in eviction petition No. 07/2011. It is submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Arvind Gupta for the petitioner that the petitioner is an old aged person and was suffering from illness during the pendency of the suit, and thereafter also he had suffered a fracture, on account of which he could not file the appeal within the prescribed time limit. According to him, the petitioner is the owner of the suit property, and he should be given one more opportunity to defend the suit in the interest of Justice.

(2.) IN the instant case, it appears that the respondent -plaintiff had filed the suit being No. 07/2011 before the Rent Tribunal, in which the petitioner -defendant was duly served. Since he had not filed the written statement within the prescribed time limit, the Rent Tribunal after giving him sufficient opportunities on different dates, had granted one opportunity to file the written statement subject to payment of cost of Rs. 200/ - as per the order dt. 02.02.2012. The petitioner was again given opportunity to file the written statement subject to payment of cost of Rs. 200/ - as per the order dt. 04.02.2012, however the petitioner did not file the same within the time limit prescribed by the Rent Tribunal. As a result of which his right to file written statement was closed. As transpiring from the impugned order passed by the trial Court, thereafter, also the petitioner did not remain present, and therefore, the Rent Tribunal passed the order on 09.04.2012 to proceed ex -parte against him. The Rent Tribunal, thereafter, proceeded further with the suit and decreed the same ex -parte as per the judgment and decree dt. 09.04.2012. The petitioner, therefore, had challenged the said decree by filing an application being No. 7/2012 under Order IX Rule 7 & 13 for setting aside the said decree. The said application was dismissed by the Rent Tribunal, the same being without any substance. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had preferred an appeal being No. 7/2012 before the appellate Tribunal, which has also been dismissed by the appellate Tribunal vide the impugned order. From the said orders, passed by the Rent Tribunal and the appellate Tribunal, it clearly appears that the petitioner had remained grossly negligent during the pendency of the suit as well as in filing the appeal before the appellate Tribunal. Though, the petitioner was granted more than sufficient opportunities to defend his case by filing the written statement, he did not choose to file the same. Though, the Rent Tribunal had passed the order to proceed ex -parte against the petitioner, he did not bother to appear before the Court. Even after passing of the exparte decree and rejection of the application under Order IX Rule 7 & 13, he preferred an appeal after the delay of three months, and that too without explaining the delay satisfactorily. Under the circumstances, the appellate Tribunal after considering the conduct of the petitioner -appellant had rightly dismissed the appeal. The Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the Courts below. Hence, the revision petition being without substance, is dismissed.