Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1100 (PNJ)

Bahadur Chand v. Kashmir Stationery Mart

2001-10-08

R.L.ANAND

body2001
Judgment R.L.Anand, J. 1. This civil revision has been directed against the two orders dated 18th August, 1998 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar, who allowed the application of the tenant and set aside the order dated 22nd July, 1988 and against the order dated 29th August, 2000 passed by the Appellate Authority, Jalandhar under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called `the Act) vide which it has been held that the revision of the landlord is not legally maintainable. 2. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner : The landlord Shri Bahadur Chand filed ejectment application under Section 13 of the Act against Messrs Kashmir Stationery Mart through Shri Vijay Kumar and Harsh Kumar alleging themselves to be its partners. The ejectment application was ex parte allowed on 22nd July, 1988. The tenant filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the learned Rent Controller who framed the following issues for the disposal of the suit : 1. Whether there are sufficient grounds for setting aside the ex parte ejectment order ? 2. Whether the application is within limitation ? OPA 3. Relief. 3. The parties were given opportunities to lead evidence and on the conclusion of the proceedings, the application under Order 9, Rule 13 C.P.C. was allowed and the ex parte order of ejectment dated 22nd July, 1988 was set aside. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord filed an appeal before the Appellate Court, Jalandhar which was dismissed on the ground that it was not maintainable under section 15 of the said Act, vide order dated 29th August, 2000. In this manner the present revision petition challenging the two orders. 5. I have heard Shri Hemant Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri G.S. Sandhawalia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent and with their assistance, have gone through the record of this case. 6. In this case, admittedly the service on the tenant was effected through Shri Harsh Kumar. The ejectment application was filed in the year 1988. Kashmir Stationery Mart was a partnership firm on the date of the institution of the proceedings. Shri Harsh Kumar had ceased to be a partner and in these circumstances, he was not competent to accept service on behalf of the firm. The ejectment application was filed in the year 1988. Kashmir Stationery Mart was a partnership firm on the date of the institution of the proceedings. Shri Harsh Kumar had ceased to be a partner and in these circumstances, he was not competent to accept service on behalf of the firm. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that Shri Harsh Kumar is not else but a real brother of Shri Vinay Kumar and wife of Shri Harsh Kumar has become the partner of Messrs Kashmir Stationery Mart. In these circumstances, Shri Vinay Kumar had the full knowledge about the service upon his brother. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when Shri Harsh Kumar retired from the partnership firm, the landlord was never informed about the dissolution of the partnership between the brothers. 7. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there was no due service upon Shri Harsh Kumar and this fact stands established from the documentary evidence which has been relied upon by the learned Rent Controller. 8. After considering the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that there was no due service upon the firm. Shri Harsh Kumar had ceased to be a partner of the firm on the date of the institution of the petition. Even assuming for the sake of arguments that the wife of Shri Harsh Kumar was the partner for her Dewar/Jeth, still it is not a valid service. So far as the controversy is concerned under Order 30 Rule 3 C.P.C., I do not see any illegality in the order dated 18th August, 1998 passed by the Rent Controller. 9. The revision petition is hereby dismissed with the directions to the learned Rent Controller to expedite the proceedings and he will try to finish the entire case within one year. 10. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Rent Controller on 5th November, 2001. Revision dismissed.