Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The ejection petition firstly came up for hearing on 04.09.2010 and notice was issued on filing of process fee under registered covers and option of dasti summons was also given by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh for 24.09.2010. The report of refusal was received and the summons were received back on refusal and the counsel for the landlord requested to move an application for substituted service. The application for substituted service was filed on 06.10.2010 and the respondent was summoned by way of publication in the newspaper, 'The Tribune' as well as by affixation for 20.11.2010. On 20.11.2010, court notice issued to the tenant had been received back served and the case was adjourned for 12.03.2011 on filing of copy etc. However, on the same date, file was again taken up as the respondent had appeared later and the case was adjourned to 08.02.2011 for filing written statement. The case was again taken up on the application filed by the landlord on the same date that the case be preponed to an early date in the month of December, 2010 since he was to retire on 28.02.2011 since the case had been fixed for 08.02.2011. The Rent Controller issued notice of the application for 26.11.2010 on filing of copy and on 26.11.2010, summons of the application for preponing the case was received back with the report of refusal and it was noticed that none had appeared on behalf of the tenant and the case was again adjourned for filing application for leave to defend, if any, as well as for consideration on the application for 08.02.2011. The landlord, before 08.02.2011, filed another application dated 05.01.2011 which was ordered to be put up on the date fixed in which it was pleaded that since the tenant had appeared on 20.11.2010 and had failed to file leave to defend application within the statutory period after the receipt of summons, it was mandatory as per provisions of Section 13-A of the Rent Act and therefore, eviction order may be passed. On 08.02.2011, when the case was taken up, none appeared on behalf of the tenant and the Rent Controller, noticed that there was no application for leave to contest and adjourned the case for 11.02.2011 for consideration. On 11.02.2011, counsel for the tenant appeared and filed an application seeking leave to contest by way of affidavit of the tenant and the case was fixed for 16.02.2011. On 16.02.2011, reply to the application for leave to contest under Section 18-A (4) was filed and it was pleaded that the retirement of the landlord was due on 28.02.2011 and the certificate attached was also of the competent authority and the tenant was in huge arrears of rent and having failed to apply for leave to contest within the statutory period of 15 days, was liable to be evicted and the landlord was moving another application on the same ground for passing of ejectment order. On the said date, the landlord filed another application for passing eviction order on the ground that the tenant had refused to accept the summons on 09.09.2010 and he was having the knowledge of the rent petition and he had not filed application for leave to defend within the statutory period. It was pleaded in the said application that the tenant was again served on 16.11.2010 but he did not apply for leave to contest and he put in appearance on 20.11.2010 and had not applied for leave to contest and he did not appear on 08.02.2011 and as per the provisions of Section 18-A read with Schedule II of the Rent Act, application for leave to contest had to be filed within 15 days from the receipt of the summons and the application for leave to contest had been filed after the statutory period and was time barred and in view of the law laid down in Om Prakash Vs. Ashwani Kumar Bassi (2010) 9 SCC 183 and Suresh Kumar Vs. Ravinder Singh Jaswal 2010 (2) RCR (Rent) 82, the tenant was liable to be evicted. 

                                                             RC/20.11.2010

           Present:      Counsel for the parties.
                         None for the respondent.
                         Notice of the application for preponing the case
received back with the report of refusal. Case called up many times but none has appeared on behalf of respondent. Now to come up on 08.02.2011 for filing leave to defend if any as well as consideration on application.