AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present revision petition has been filed against the order
dated 27.9.2016 whereby the Rent Controller, Ludhiana has rejected the
application for setting aside the exparte eviction order dated 16.5.2012.
The reasoning given in the impugned order was that the
application had been filed after more than 1-1/2 years on 3.3.2014 and
keeping in view the fact that the limitation was 30 days from the date of
knowledge and nothing had been averred as to how the petitioner/applicant
came to know regarding the exparte decree. The applicant was not a party
in the Rent Petition and therefore she had not explained in what capacity
she had filed the application.
A perusal of the paper-book would go on to show that the
respondent filed the ejectment petition on 07.08.2002 of the property which
is situated on Sangla Shivala Road, Ludhiana as shown red in the site plan
against Ram Swaroop, the father of the petitioner. The petitioner who is the
married daughter was not a respondent in the said ejectment petition. On
account of his death, his legal heirs Ashwani Kumar and Sushil Kumar had
been impleaded. The ground taken was that there was non payment of rent
from 1998 and the tenant had ceased to occupy the premises for the last ten
years due to which the property had become totally unfit and unsafe for
human habitation and was in a very dilapidated condition. The legal
representatives of Ram Swaroop being relatives of the petitioner were
served through RC (registered covers) and UPC but none had appeared to
contest the petition. Resultantly, the ejectment had been ordered exparte.
It is apparent that the present application has thus been filed at
the instance of married daughter only to delay the handing over the
premises in question. The finding which have been recorded by the Rent
Controller while passing the impugned order does not suffer from any
infirmity or illegality. The petitioner had not specifically explained as and
when it came to her knowledge that the exparte order had been passed. The
other legal representatives had been duly served and they had not chosen to
contest the petition. It is thus apparent that it is an attempt to deny the fruits
of litigation to the respondents and on the face of it, it is a misconceived and
mischievous litigation.
Accordingly, the present revision is dismissed in limine.