Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 172 (PNJ)

Virender Kumar v. Ram Gopal

2006-01-20

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2006
Judgment Satish Kumar Mittal, J. 1. This revision petition has been filed by the tenant under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 against the order dated 23.3.2004, passed by the Rent Controller, Hisar, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 3.10.2002 has been dismissed. 2. In this case, an ejectment application was filed by the respondent-landlord against the petitioner in the year 2001 on the ground of non-payment of rent. Pursuant to the notice is:sued,the petitioner appeared in the said case on 18.9.2002 and sought time to tender the arrears at rent. On his request, the case was adjourned to 26.9.2002. On 26.9,2002, the rent was not tendered and a date was requested, which was not opposed and the case was adjourned to 30.9.2002 for tendering the rent. On 30.9.2002, rent was not tendered. Again a date was requested, which was not opposed and the case was adjourned to 1.10.2002 for tendering the rent. On 1.10.2002, again the rent was not tendered and a date was requested, which was again not opposed and the case was adjourned to 3.10.2002 for tendering the rent. On 3.10.2002, the following order was passed:- Present: J.P. Jain Adv. for the petitioner, None of the Respondent. The case called up several times since morning but none appeared on behalf of the respondent. It is now 3.55 P.M. Waited sufficiently. Therefore, the respondent is proceeded ex-parte. To come up on 4.1.03 for the ex-parte evidence of the petitioner. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings, which has been dismissed vide impugned order. In the application, it was stated that on 30.9.2002, the petitioner engaged one Shri S.S.Beniwal as his Advocate and handed over to him the amount of arrears of rent, but he came to know later on that neither his aforesaid Advocate appeared in the court nor tendered the amount. It has been stated that his Advocate had told him that on 3.10.1002, he could not appear in the court due to some unavoidable reasons and could not tender rent in the court as his mother was seriously ill. Therefore, it was pleaded that as far as the petitioner is concerned, his absence was not intentional. 4. It has been stated that his Advocate had told him that on 3.10.1002, he could not appear in the court due to some unavoidable reasons and could not tender rent in the court as his mother was seriously ill. Therefore, it was pleaded that as far as the petitioner is concerned, his absence was not intentional. 4. The Rent Controller has dismissed the application while observing that as per the case of the petitioner, he himself appeared on 18.9.2002 and sought time to tender the rent. On 26.9.2002 as well as on 30.9.2002, he did not tender the rent and the case was further adjourned. In spite of four dates, he did not tender the rent and on 3.10.2002,no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner. The Rent Controller has further observed that the petitioner is Clerk of an Advocate working in the Court and it cannot be taken that he was not aware of the consequences of not tendering the rent and not appearing in the court. The Rent Controller did not believe the story given by the petitioner. 5. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the impugned order. 6. The petitioner has filed the instant petition after more than nine months of the passing of the impugned order. No explanation has been given for the delay occurred in filing the instant revision petition. Undisputedly, the petitioner is in arrears of rent since the year 2001.Counsel for the petitioner, while relying upon the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in M/s Mangat Singh Trilochan Singh Thr. Mangat Singh (D) thr. LRs and Ors. v. Satpal 2003(2) Rent Control Reporter 567 (S.C.) and a decision of this Court in Dhanna Singh v. Teja Singh 2003 (Suppl.) Civil & Rent Judicial Reports 516, submitted that 3.10.2002 was not the first date of hearing. Therefore, if he has not tendered the rent on the said date, he should not have been proceeded ex-parte. This contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is devoid of any merit. The petitioner was proceeded ex-parte, because on 3.10.2002, no one appeared on his behalf. Looking to the conduct of the petitioner, the Rent Controller did not set aside the ex-parte proceedings. This contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is devoid of any merit. The petitioner was proceeded ex-parte, because on 3.10.2002, no one appeared on his behalf. Looking to the conduct of the petitioner, the Rent Controller did not set aside the ex-parte proceedings. I am also not inclined to set aside the said order in view of the fact that the instant petition has been filed after a long unexplained delay, I also do not find any illegality or juris-dictional error in the impugned order. 7. Dismissed.