Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amarjit Singh vs Amarjit Kaur Puar on 11 July, 2013
Author: Jaswant Singh
Bench: Jaswant Singh
CR No.3689 of 2013(O&M) #1#
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CR No.3689 of 2013(O&M)
Date of Decision:-11.07.2013
Amarjit Singh.
......Petitioner.
Versus
Amarjit Kaur Puar.
......Respondent.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present:- Mr. Rahul Sharma-I, Advocate for the Petitioner(tenant).
Mr. S. Sukhwinder Singh, GPA of the respondent in person.
***
JASWANT SINGH, J.(ORAL)
Petitioner(tenant) is in revision aggrieved against the order dated 29.05.2013 whereby the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh has dismissed the application of the petitioner(tenant) under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC seeking setting aside of ex-parte decree of ejectment dated 27.11.2002.
In brief, facts of the case are that respondent(landlady) through her GPA S. Sukhwinder Singh filed the petition on 02.11.2010 under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for ejectment of the petitioner(tenant) from the demised residential house no.2198, Sector 15-C, Chandigarh on the ground of non payment of rent at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.01.2003. The petitioner(tenant) put in appearance through his counsel and since no reply was filed by the tenant after availing 10 opportunities his defence was struck of on Mahajan Vinay 2013.07.19 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document at Chandigarh CR No.3689 of 2013(O&M) #2# 21.11.2011. During the course of evidence of the landlady due to non appearance on behalf of the petitioner(tenant), he was ordered to be proceeded ex-parte on 06.09.2012. Ultimately, an ex-parte eviction order was passed on 27.11.2012.
Subsequently, the petitioner(tenant) on 14.03.2013 filed an application (P-2) for setting aside ex-parte eviction order on the plea that he came to known of eviction order on the visit of the bailiff for execution of warrant of possession. It was stated that petitioner(tenant) engaged Mr. Labh Singh, Advocate who had undergone a brain surgery and he did not inform the petitioner(tenant) about the dates and the passing of the eviction order. The learned Rent Controller while rejecting the plea has found that in fact the said Labh Singh was a proxy counsel for the original counsel Sh. S.S. Bhullar and thus the story that his counsel did not inform him to be untenable.
Be that as it may, even otherwise perusal of the impugned orders shows that the petitioner(tenant) has been culpably negligent & casual in pursuing his case before Rent Controller and in all probability with the deliberate motive to delay the eviction matter.
Upon notice counsel for the respondent has put in appearance and stated that the possession of the demised premises through the process of the court has been duly effected on 01.06.2013 and thus he submits that the whole issue would now be rendered infructuous.
In view of the aforesaid circumstances, I find that the present revision petition is totally devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed.
( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE July 11, 2013 Mahajan Vinay 2013.07.19 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document at Chandigarh CR No.3689 of 2013(O&M) #3# Vinay Mahajan Vinay 2013.07.19 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document at Chandigarh