Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raj Kumar vs Dogar Dass Sachdeva Trust on 12 December, 2014
Author: G.S.Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S.Sandhawalia
C.R. No. 8470 of 2014 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.R. No. 8470 of 2014
Date of decision: 12.12.2014
Raj Kumar ....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Dogar Dass Sachdeva Trust ...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA
Present: Mr. Y.K. Aneja, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. (Oral)
The present revision petition filed by the petitioner-tenant is directed against order dated 06.08.2013 (Annexure P-1) whereby, the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte ejectment order dated 21.10.2009 has been dismissed. Challenge is also laid to the appellate order dated 03.12.2014 (Annexure P-2) which has upheld the said order dated 06.08.2013 and dismissed the appeal filed by the tenant.
Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the petitioner does not sign in Punjabi and the summons were signed in Punjabi. It is further submitted that the summons had not been witnessed by any other person and accordingly, placed reliance upon judgment of this Court in Sukhbir Singh vs. Mansa Ram, 1993 (1) PLR 149 to submit that he should be given an opportunity to contest the rent petition.
After hearing counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that there is no merit in the present revision petition. The respondent-Trust filed an ejectment application under Section 13 of The East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 seeking ejectment of the SHIVANI GUPTA 2014.12.16 14:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh C.R. No. 8470 of 2014 2 petitioner from the demised shop. The petitioner was proceeded against ex parte on 28.07.2006 on the basis of a report dated 27.03.2006 and eventually, ejectment order was passed on 21.10.2009. The application was filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC on 20.03.2010 by taking the plea that it is only in execution proceedings he had come to know and his absence was neither willful nor intentional.
The trial Court examined the petitioner as AW-2 and one Shahjee as AW-1 and Jagdish Chander as AW-3. The Trust examined Smt. Bimla Sachdeva and the process server Sukhsurinder Singh as RW-2.
After going through the statement of the process server, the trial Court noticed that he had visited the shop of the petitioner-applicant where he was working as a Barber and had presented summons upon him which had been accepted and signed on the back. Accordingly, he had made a report on 27.03.2006. The summons were exhibited as R-1 and the report as Ex.R-2. It was noticed that initially munadi had been issued without any order and thereafter, summons had been sent. Nothing had been brought on record that the signatures were not his and that he used to sign in Hindi as was put forth on his account by AW-1 Shahjee. It was noticed that AW-1 had deposed that he had taught Hindi to Raj Kumar 4 months ago as per his statement recorded on 26.09.2011 whereas, as per the rent note which had been executed in the year 1995, Raj Kumar had signed in Hindi itself. It was also noticed that the decree was passed on 21.10.2009 and the application was filed on 20.03.2010 i.e. beyond the period of limitation of one month.
The appeal has been dismissed by noticing that the witness of the tenant Shahjee had himself deposed that the signatures on the summons SHIVANI GUPTA 2014.12.16 14:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh C.R. No. 8470 of 2014 3 are his but the summons were not served upon him in his presence. Accordingly, the Courts have refused to interfere in the application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings by recording a finding that the petitioner was well aware and had the knowledge of the ejectment petition. The judgment which has been relied upon by the petitioner in Sukhbir Singh's case (supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case since this Court noticed that the landlord had not come forward in support of the statement of the process server.
In the present case, as noticed above, an attempt has been made to deny the signatures on the ground that the petitioner signs only in Hindi. Rather, he has shattered his own case by introducing a witness who submitted that he had taught him to sign in Hindi 4 months earlier. The Courts have rightly noticed that the rent note was executed much earlier in 1995 and on that also, the petitioner signed in Hindi. In such circumstances, the falsity of the explanation has been properly exposed and the Courts have rightly declined to exercise jurisdiction. This Court, in revisional jurisdiction, in such circumstances will not interfere on account of the ground taken to explain his absence. Admittedly, the petitioner is a tenant and was liable to pay the rent. The eviction has also been ordered on the ground of non-payment. He would have been well aware of the consequences of non-payment since the eviction petition was filed in 2006.
In such circumstances, there is no scope for interference in the well reasoned order passed by the Courts below and the present revision petition is accordingly dismissed.
12.12.2014 (G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
shivani JUDGE
SHIVANI GUPTA
2014.12.16 14:40
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh