Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 206 (PNJ)

Sewa Singh v. Gian Singh

2006-01-25

VINEY MITTAL

body2006
Judgment Viney Mittal, J. 1. The present revision petition is a classic illustration of misuse of the process of law by the landlord Gian Singh. The record of the case shows that Gian Singh in connivance with the Process Serving Agency of the Court obtained an exparte order of ejectment against the tenant-petitioner Sewa Singh on April 8, 1980. In obtaining the aforesaid order, Gian Singh not only connived with the Process Serving Agency but also succeeded in getting the said ex parte order against the tenant by defying all norms of administration of justice. 2. The facts which emerge from the record show that Gian Singh filed an ejectment petition against the tenant Sewa Singh on January 22, 1980. The ejectment of the claimant was claimed on two grounds. It was claimed that arrears of rent had not been paid by the tenant and the building in question had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The record of the case also shows that the landlord is residing in the same building where the shops in question are situated. 3. The ejectment petition was taken up for consideration by the Rent Controller on 23.1.1980. On the aforesaid date, notice of the ejectment petition was ordered to be issued to the tenant for February 13, 1980 by registered cover only. No registered cover was filed by the landlord for effecting service upon the tenant. The order dated February 13, 1980 passed by the Rent Controller shows that a report was submitted by the Process Serving Agency that tenant was evading service. The basis of the aforesaid report is not understandable since no notice was ever ordered to be issued in the ordinary way to the tenant. However, the learned Rent Controller noticed on February 13, 1980 that registered cover had not been filed by the landlord. He was consequently directed to file the registered cover within two days for issuance of notice to the tenant for March 6, 1980. The Rent Controller, however, directed that service upon the tenant be also effected by way of munadi. 4. On March 6, 1980, a report was submitted by Process Server that munadi had been conducted in the locality where the two shops in possession of the tenant were situated. There was, however, no report With regard to service upon the tenant by way of registered cover. 4. On March 6, 1980, a report was submitted by Process Server that munadi had been conducted in the locality where the two shops in possession of the tenant were situated. There was, however, no report With regard to service upon the tenant by way of registered cover. Acting upon the aforesaid report of the Process Server alone, the tenant was directed to be proceeded against ex parte by the Rent Controller. Ex-pane evidence of the landlord was recorded. An ex parte order of ejectment was passed by the Rent Controller on April 9, 1980. 5. Strangely, even after obtaining the aforesaid order on April 8, 1980, the landlord kept silent. He chose not to execute the aforesaid order at all. For the first time on April 5, 1985, after the expiry of 5 years, an execution application was filed by him. Even on filing of the aforesaid execution application, no notice was issued to the tenant by the Executing Court. Straightaway warrants of possession were issued. The tenant was dispossessed from the demised premises on April, 6, 1985. [n these circumstances, the tenant claimed that he came to know of the ejectment order for the first time when he was dispossessed from the shops in question on April 6, 1985. Consequently, he filed an application for the restoration of possession before the Executing Court. The possession was consequently restored to the tenant by the Executing Court on April 12, 1985. Thereupon, the tenant filed an application for setting aside the ex parte ejectment order on April 17, 1985. 6. The landlord contested the aforesaid application filed by the tenant. It was claimed by him that tenant was always in knowledge of the ejectment order, and, therefore, he could not be heard to get the same set aside after the expiry of five years. It was further claimed by him that tenant had been duly served in the ejectment proceedings, and therefore, the ejectment order dated April 8, 1980 was legal and valid. 7. The parties led their evidence before the Rent Controller. In the aforesaid proceedings, the learned Rent Controller, vide the present impugned order dated October 22, 1991 has dismissed the application filed by the tenant. Consequently, the tenant/petitioner had approached this Court through the present revision petition filed under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. 8. The parties led their evidence before the Rent Controller. In the aforesaid proceedings, the learned Rent Controller, vide the present impugned order dated October 22, 1991 has dismissed the application filed by the tenant. Consequently, the tenant/petitioner had approached this Court through the present revision petition filed under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. 8. I have heard Shri R.K. Battas, the learned Counsel appearing for the tenant-petitioner and Shri Sahil Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the landlord-respondent and with their assistance have also gone through the record of this case. 9. The facts as noticed above show that the landlord had in fact played a clever game not only with the tenant but also taken the Court for a ride. He had connived with the Process Serving Agency of the Court. The interim orders passed by the Court for effecting service upon the tenant show that the landlord was required to deposit registered cover for serving the tenant. Needful was not done by the landlord. However, a report was managed by the landlord that the tenant was evading service. An order dated February 13, 1980 was passed whereby the landlord was required to furnish fresh registered cover but additionally an order was passed that service upon tenant be effected by munadi. The landlord at this stage managed with the Process Server again and obtained a report that munadi had been conducted. On the basis of the aforesaid report, the Rent Controller chose to proceed ex parte against the tenant and therefore, an ex parte order of ejectment was passed on April 8, 1980. 10. Shri R.K. Battas, the learned Counsel for the tenant, has also taken me through the statement of RW1 Kashmir Singh, who was working as Process Server in the year 1980 with the Court of Rent Controller. The cross-examination of the aforesaid Process Server Shows that he had admitted that he had never attempted to get his report RW/1/1 attested from any of the witness of the locality. Process Server admitted that he never knew Sewa Singh tenant personally. The aforesaid witness has also admitted that the landlord had told him that the tenant was not available. The cross-examination of the aforesaid Process Server Shows that he had admitted that he had never attempted to get his report RW/1/1 attested from any of the witness of the locality. Process Server admitted that he never knew Sewa Singh tenant personally. The aforesaid witness has also admitted that the landlord had told him that the tenant was not available. It has been conceded by the Process Server that landlord had told him that tenant was evading service and on that information supplied by the landlord, he was satisfied so, therefore, he did not choose to make any enquiry. In these circumstances, no reliance whatsoever can be placed on the report submitted by the said Process Server. The learned Rent Controller should have straightaway allowed the application filed by the tenant and set aside the ex parte order dated April 8, 1980, which had been managed by the landlord in connivance with the Process Serving Agency. 11. Another strange observation made by the learned Rent Controller in the impugned order is that since landlord was himself residing in the same building where the shops in question are located, therefore, it was highly improbable for the tenant that he was not aware of the proceedings. These observations are not only conjectural in nature but also loose sight of the fact that the landlord in strange circumstances had managed a false report from the Process Server, There was absolutely no justification for the tenant to evade service of the ejectment proceedings. The landlord had claimed that the building in question was unfit and unsafe for human habitation. When he himself was residing in the said building, then obviously after getting the aforesaid ejectment order on April 8, 1980, he could not be expected wait for a period of more than five years to seek the execution thereof. The very fact that the landlord chose to remain silent for a period of five years after the ejectment order was obtained by him shows that he had played fraud with the Court. The aforesaid fraud played by the landlord cannot be allowed to be perpetuated at all. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present revision petition is allowed. The order dated October 22, 1991 passed by the learned Rent Controller is set aside. The application filed by the tenant for setting aside the order dated April 8, 1980 is also allowed. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present revision petition is allowed. The order dated October 22, 1991 passed by the learned Rent Controller is set aside. The application filed by the tenant for setting aside the order dated April 8, 1980 is also allowed. As a consequence thereof, the ejectment order dated April 8, 1980 passed by the learned Rent Controller is also set aside. The ejectment petition filed by the landlord stands revived to its original number and the same shall be decided afresh by the Rent Controller now, in accordance with law. The tenant-petitioner would be at liberty to contest the aforesaid ejectment petition and would be granted an opportunity to file the written statement and participate in the proceedings in accordance with law. The parties shall lead their evidence in accordance with law. It is made clear that the evidence led by the landlord earlier shall not be read into record. 13. In view of the conduct of the landlord, the present revision petition is allowed with costs which are quantified at Rs. 15.000/-. The costs would be paid by the landlord to the tenant before he is allowed to prosecute his ejectment petition. In case the costs are not paid, the ejectment petition filed by the landlord shall stand dismissed for non-prosecution on this ground alone. The parties shall appear before the learned Rent Controller on 31.3.2006.