Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1120 (PNJ)

Bansi Ram v. Murti Shri Ram Chanderji Maharaj

2010-03-09

L.N.MITTAL

body2010
Judgment L.N.Mittal, J. 1 Tenant Bansi Ram has filed the instant revision petition under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban(Contrpl of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (in short the Rent Act). 2 Respondent Murti Shri Ram Chander Ji Maharaj filed ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Rent Act against the petitioner herein. Tenant/petitioner was contesting the said ejectment petition. However, none appeared for the tenant before the Rent Controller on 06.12.1994 and therefore, the tenant was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 06.12.1994 (Annexure P/3). Ultimately, ejectment petition was allowed by learned Rent Controller, Ambala City, vie ex parte ejectment order dated 08.06.1995 (Annexure P/4). 3 The tenant filed application (Annexure P/5) for setting aside the ex parte ejectment order dated 08.06.1995 (Annexure P/4) alleging that on 06.12.1994, the date fixed in the ejectment petition before the Rent Controller, tenants foster sister expired and therefore, the tenant could not go to the Court. On the next day, clerk of his counsel told the tenant that the ejectment petition was fixed for 20.031995. On 20.03.1995, the clerk told the tenant that the case had been adjourned to 20.05.1995. On 20.05.1995, the case was not in the cause list. The clerk of counsel after making inquiries told that the case had been adjourned to 30.05.1995. On 30.05.1995 the tenant was ill and was unable to go to the Court. Later on clerk of his counsel told the tenant that the next date was 13.09.1995 and on 13.09.1995, the tenant came to know that the case had been decided exparte on 08.06.1995. 4 Learned Rent Controller vide order dated 10.04.2009 (Annexure P/1) dismissed the tenants application for setting aside the ex parte ejectment order. Appeal preferred by the tenant against the said order has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Ambala vide judgment dated 20.10.2009 (Annexure P/2) holding the appeal to be not maintainable. Feeling aggrieved, tenant has preferred the instant revision petition. 5 I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. 6 Perusal of the averments made by the petitioner/tenant in his application (Annexure P/5) reveals that no sufficient ground for setting aside the ex parte ejectment order is made out. Feeling aggrieved, tenant has preferred the instant revision petition. 5 I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. 6 Perusal of the averments made by the petitioner/tenant in his application (Annexure P/5) reveals that no sufficient ground for setting aside the ex parte ejectment order is made out. The tenant was proceeded against as parte the ejectment petition on 06.12.1994 and thereafter the ejectment petition was allowed vide ex parte ejectment order dated 08.06.1995 (Annexure P/4), but during the intervening period of more than 6 months, the tenant never appeared before the Rent Controller nor any counsel appeared on his behalf. Mere bald allegation that the clerk of his counsel intimated wrong dates of hearing to the tenant does not inspire confidence.There is bald statement of the tenant in support of the said version. Statement of another witness examined by the tenant is not relevant for the purpose of setting aside the ex parte ejectment order because the said statement pertains to the merit of the ejectment petition. The tenant neither examined his counsel engaged in the ejectment petition as witness nor examined clerk of said counsel as witness. Consequently, self serving bald statement of the tenant is not sufficient for setting aside the ex parte ejectment order. 7 In addition to the aforesaid, the ejectment order was passed on 08.06.1995 i.e. almost 15 years ago and the petitioner/tenant has not yet vacated the demised premises pursuant to the said ejectment order and has been enjoying the possession thereof for almost 15 years even after passing of the ejectment order. 8 For the reasons recorded hereinabove, I find no illegality in the impugned orders (Annexures P/1 & P/2) passed by the Authorities below, thereby dismissing the application filed by the tenant/petitioner for setting aside the ex parte ejectment order: 9 The revision petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine.