Punjab-Haryana High Court
Naumi Ram vs Bhupinder Singh on 30 April, 1998
Equivalent citations: (1998)120PLR68
JUDGMENT G.C. Garg, J.
1. Respondent Bhupinder Singh is the landlord of the house in question in which Naumi Ram, now represented by his legal representatives was the tenant. The landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, (for short "the Act") against Naumi Ram for ejectment. Naumi Ram filed a petitioner under Section 8 of the Act against the landlord. In the ejectment application, Naumi Ram filed reply wherein he mentioned that proceedings under Section 8 of the Act are pending in the court of Shri Harjit Singh, Rent Controller, Ludhiana, against the present respondent. In the petition filed by Naumi Ram, the landlord was proceeded against ex parte and ultimately the said petition was accepted ex parte by order dated 24.7.1981. The landlord filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex parte order dated 24.7.1981 alleging that he was not duly served in the petition and that he acquired knowledge of the ex parte order only on 3.8.1984 and thereafter he filed the present application on 29.8.1984. Learned Rent Controller, after framing issues and recording evidence produced by the respective parties, dismissed the application by his order dated 5.6.1990. Learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the respondent herein was duly served and the application for setting the ex parte order was filed beyond the period of limitation as he had acquired knowledge of the proceedings in petition Under Section 8 of the Act in December, 1980 when Naumi Ram filed reply to the petition Under Section 13 filed by the landlord.
2. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned Rent Controller, the landlord filed appeal. Appeal was accepted and consequently the ex parte order dated 24.7.1981 and the order dated 5.6.1990 were set aside by the appellate authority by order dated 2.8.1991. Learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that no legal service was effected on the respondent-landlord and there was a good and sufficient cause for setting aside the ex parte order. Learned Appellate Authority rejected the plea of the present petitioners that the application for setting aside the ex parte order was filed beyond the period of limitation. It came to the conclusion that on the date i.e. 18.12.1980 when the respondent is allege to have acquired knowledge through the reply filed by the tenants to the ejectment petition, the ex parte order passed on 24.7.1981 had not come into existence and, therefore, it could not be said that the landlord had the knowledge of the ex parte order passed in petition Under Section 8 of the Act against him. Hence, this petition at the instance of the legal representative of Naumi Ram.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners re-iterated the submissions made before the authorities below. Learned counsel vehemently submitted that the appellate authority has erred in setting aside the ex parte order and directing the Rent Controller to dispose of the matter on its own merits afresh in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the respondent has not put in appearance.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and going through impugned order, I am of the opinion that this petition has no merit and deserves to be dismissed. The appellate authority has noticed in the impugned order that on the summons of Munadi, it was clearly reported by the Process Server in his report dated 10.9.1981/11.9.1981, that whereabout of Bhupinder Singh were inquired at his address at Ludhiana and it was told by the residents of the locality that he lives at Ferozepur. Learned appellate authority on the basis of this report thus concluded that the Munadi, if effected at Ludhiana address of the respondent is meaningless and it could not be said that he was validly and legally served in the petition by way of substituted service on the basis of that Munadi. Bhupinder Singh while appearing as his own witness before the Rent Controller categorically deposed that he owned property and residential house in village Ghiniwala in District Ferozepur and that he was living there since 1940. His statement was fully corroborated by Satish Chander, Sarpanch, of the village of the respondent. Not only this, he also produced in evidence the copies of his ration card, arms licence and even the voter list evidencing the fact that he was residing at his Ferozepur address. The petitioners could not controvert the evidence led by the present respondent by any evidence. In this view of the matter, learned Rent Controller was not right in coming to the conclusion that the respondent was duly served.
5. As regards the question of limitation, the appellate authority has again rightly concluded that on the date when the respondent is alleged to have acquired knowledge of the proceedings Under Section 8 of the Act, the ex parte order had not come into existence. The respondent, even if it be taken that he through the reply filed by the tenants to the petition Under Section 13 of the Act came to know of the pendency of the petition Under Section 8 against him in December, 1980 could not presume that the petition Under Section 8 of the Act would certainly succeed and thus an ex parte order will come to be passed against him. The provision of Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code clearly provide a limitation of one month for filing an application for setting aside an ex parte order or the proceedings and this limitation is to be counted from the date when such ex parte order is passed or the person against whom such order has been passed, has acquired knowledge thereof. It is no where the case of the present petitioners that while mentioning the factum of pendency of the petition Under Section 8 of the Act in the reply filed by them in December, 1980 to the ejectment petition, they also mentioned that even the ex parte proceedings have taken place against the respondent. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the respondent had been proceeded against ex parte in September, 1980 and the reply was filed in December, 1980. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, I find no illegality or material irregularity in the order passed by the appellate authority. The revision petition is consequently dismissed. Learned Rent Controller is directed to dispose of the petition Under Section 8 of the act between the parties afresh in accordance with law. Since, the matter is quite old one, learned Rent Controller shall dispose it of at an early date, preferably within one year. No costs.