Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1057 (PNJ)

Jit Singh v. Rajwant Kaur

2001-09-27

R.L.ANAND

body2001
Judgment R.L.Anand, J. 1. By this order I dispose of three civil revisions bearing Nos. 5114 of 1999, 5385 of 1999 and 1160 of 2001, titled Jit Singh v. Smt. Rajwant Kaur, as in my opinion all these revisions can be disposed of by one order. 2. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner :- Smt. Rajwant Kaur widow of Prof. Harbhajan Singh filed an ejectment petition against Jit Singh seeking his ejectment from the demised premises fully described in the petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act). Notice of the petition was given to the respondent-tenant, who was personally served. In sprite of personal service the respondent-tenant did not appear before the Rent Controller and was proceeded ex parte on 29.7.1997. Finally, an ex parte ejectment order was passed on 18.10.1997. Thereafter the landlady filed an application under Section 152 C.P.C. praying that in the earlier ejectment petition wrong description with regard to the boundaries of the demised premises had been given and she may be allowed to correct the boundaries. The said application was allowed ex parte vide order dated 26.9.1998. Respondent Jit Singh then filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. before the Rent Controller for setting aside the ex parte order of eviction dated 18.10.1997 but the same was declined on 19.8.1999. 3. Not satisfied with the various orders passed by the Rent Controller, the present three revisions which I am disposing of with the assistance rendered by Mr. Sanjiv Goel, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Arun Sanghi, Advocate on behalf of the respondent. 4. Two points survive for consideration in this case. Firstly, whether the Rent Controller was justified in allowing the application under Section 152 C.P.C. ex parte; and secondly, whether the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. has been rightly rejected by the Rent Controller or not. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Rent Controller could not allow the application under Section 152 C.P.C. ex parte and it was obligatory upon him to issue notice of the said application to the respondent-tenant and by non-issuing the said notice a serious prejudice has been caused to the tenant when the description of the demised premises has been changed by the landlady at the back of the tenant. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is a sufficient cause for setting aside the ex parte order of ejectment. 5. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent submits that in the ejectment proceedings the petitioner-tenant was personally served but he did not appear and ex parte order was passed. In these circumstances, when the tenant was proceeded ex parte in the main proceedings where he could take all the pleas with regard to the description of the property, it was not necessary on the part of the Rent Controller to issue notice on the application under Section 152 C.P.C. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner was personally served in the main ejectment petition and in these circumstances the application for setting ex parte order of ejectment could be filed within 30 days from the date of the passing of the order. Since the petitioner-tenant had been duly served in the main rent proceedings, therefore, the Rent Controller was justified in declining the application under Section 152 C.P.C. In support of his contention, he relied upon The Punjab State Cooperative Bank Ltd. and another v. Shri Baldev Krishan, 1994(1) 106 P.L.R. 627 wherein it was observed that where a party to a case does not even care to appear inspite of the notice having been duly served, it would be an abuse of the process of law if the order passed at the end of ex parte proceedings is mechanically set aside. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also invited my attention to Madan Lal and others v. Karam Chand and others, 2000(1) P.L.R. 552 and M/s International Steel House and another v. Vardhman Spinning General Mills and others, 1989 HRR 491 : 1989(2) RCR(Rent) 521 (P&H). It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that under Section 152 C.P.C. power is granted to the Court to amend clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission, but with regard to the description of the property the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to pass such as order at the back of the tenant who has been seriously prejudiced. 7. 7. After considering the rival contentions of the parties, I am of the considered opinion that none of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner has any legal force. Firstly, it may be mentioned here that the strict provisions of C.P.C. are not applicable to the proceedings of the Rent Controller, who is a persona designata. A reading of the Act would show that only limited provisions of the C.P.C. have been made applicable to the Act. In these circumstances, the Rent Controller is always free to evolve his own procedure provided that the procedure applies the participles of natural justice. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the provisions of C.P.C. are applicable to the rent proceedings, still I am of the opinion that Sections 151 and 153 C.P.C. give ample power to the court to amend any defect or error in any proceeding in a suit and all necessary amendments can be allowed to be made for the real determination of the question in dispute. It is admitted case of the parties that the tenant was duly served. In such a situation it was always open to the tenant to raise a plea before the Rent Controller that the rent petition under Section 13 of the Act was not legally maintainable and it pertained to a different property. When the tenant has slept over his right, he cannot be allowed at his juncture to say that the application under Section 152 C.P.C. has been illegally allowed. In this case the petitioner-tenant had been personally served. He opted to remain out from the era of contest of the rent proceedings and such a litigant, who does not have the courtesy to appear before the court of law in order to agitate his claim, cannot be allowed to say that the ex parte order of ejectment should be set aside, especially after a lapse of four years. 8. Resultantly, all the three civil revisions are hereby dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,000/- each.