Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagan Nath vs Parshotam Dass on 16 October, 2014
Author: G.S.Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S.Sandhawalia
CR No.7385 of 2013 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.7385 of 2013
Date of decision:16.10.2014
Jagan Nath
....Petitioner
Versus
Parshotam Dass ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA
Present: Mr.I.P.S.Mangat, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.Gaurav Jindal, Advocate, for the respondent.
****
G.S.Sandhawalia J.(Oral)
The present revision petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeks setting aside of the order dated 27.07.2012 (Annexure P2) passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Karnal, whereby the petition of the landlord, filed under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban Rent Eviction Act, 1973 (for short, the 'Act') was dismissed due to non-appearance of both the parties at 12.30 p.m. and it was noticed that the Court time was 8 a.m. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Mahabir Parsad Singh Vs. M/s Jacks Aviation Pvt. Ltd. AIR 1999 SC 287.
Thereafter, the application dated 08.08.2012, for restoration of the case, was filed on the ground that counsel for the petitioner was out of station and the petitioner was ill and accordingly, the absence of the petitioner was not intentional and bona fide. The application was duly supported by an affidavit of the landlord and the same was contested by the tenant for obvious reasons.
The Rent Controller reiterated the earlier decision without even discussing the aspect of the illness of the petitioner-applicant and did not even take into consideration the fact that an affidavit had been filed in support of the MAMTA application and dismissed the same on 17.09.2013 (Annexure P5), which is also 2014.10.27 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.7385 of 2013 -2- subject matter of challenge.
There is no denying the fact that the petition for ejectment was filed on the ground of non-payment and that the shop was in a dilapidated condition and was required for the personal use, after reconstruction. The petition remained pending for a period of 3 years when it was dismissed in default. The petitioner has reproduced the zimni order passed a day earlier when the petition was dismissed in default. The said order reads as under:
"On the joint request of both the Ld. Counsel for the parties, case is adjourned to 27.7.12 for rebuttal evidence if any and for arguments."
From a bare perusal of the order, it would be clear that the case was ripe for arguments and it could have been decided on merits. The evidence which has been collected by the petitioner-landlord was, thus, thrown away in a stroke of the pen and the petitioner would be again forced to file afresh and would have to lead evidence again on the same grounds. It is settled principle that while deciding the lis, the Court's should not shirk their duty and take a easy way out. The Rent Controller had the option to decide the issue on merits even in the absence of the parties, from both sides. The ejectment order could also have been passed in the absence of the tenant or his counsel and therefore, merely because the petitioner was not present and his counsel had allegedly stayed away on account of strike, should not gravely prejudice the parties for the conduct of their counsel. The judgment which has been relied upon would not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case as admittedly, an application had been filed thereafter also to recall the order on the ground that the petitioner-landlord was not well. The Rent Controller did not advert to the said fact while dismissing the application and only reiterated the earlier orders. In Mahabir Parsad Singh (supra) the Apex Court was deciding the issue where an application for transfer MAMTA 2014.10.27 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.7385 of 2013 -3- had been filed on the ground of boycotting a particular Court headed by a particular officer.
In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the Rent Controller has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law and committed an illegality and irregularity.
Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed. The orders dated 27.07.2012 (Annexure P2) and 17.09.2013 (Annexure P5) are hereby quashed. The petitioner-landlord is required to pay a sum of `10,000/- for the inconvenience caused to the tenant and for expenses which have unnecessarily been incurred, by the respondent-tenant.
16.10.2014 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA)
sailesh/mmt JUDGE
MAMTA
2014.10.27 14:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document