Chaman Lal Kapoor vs Charanjit Singh

N.K. Sodhi, J. (Oral)

Charanjit Singh respondent filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 seeking ejectment of the petitionertenant from the demised premises which is a shop at Amritsar. The case of the landlord is that the tenant has vacated the premises and has sublet the same to the Punjab National Bank, Hall Bazar, Amritsar. In response to the notice issued by the Rent Controller, the petitioner as well as Punjab National Bank put in appearance before the trial Court and filed their respective written statements. The petitionertenant in his written statement has stated that he has no concern with the demised premises. The Punjab National Bank does not claim to be a tenant or a sub tenant in the premises. However, some goods belonging to the petitioner are lying in the shop which are pledged with the Bank.

By an order dated 23.11.1995 ex parte proceedings were ordered against the petitionertenant. He filed an application for setting aside those proceedings and on the consent of the parties those proceedings were set aside subject to payment of Rs. 200/ as costs and the case was adjourned to 17.1.1996. On the adjourned date, counsel for the petitionertenant appeared in the Court but he was reluctant to pay the costs awarded on the last date of hearing as the tenant had not instructed him. The trial court had no option but to strike off the defence of the petitioner under Section 35B of the Civil Procedure Code. Thereafter, the tenant through his counsel filed an application before the Rent Controller on 7.2.1996 alleging therein that he had noted a wrong date of hearing in the case and that he learnt for the first time that his defence had been struck off. The trial Court observed that the same counsel was present on 17.1.1996 when the defence was struck off and, therefore, there was no merit in the application which was, accordingly, dismissed on 4.4.1996. It is against this order that the petitionertenant has filed this revision petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

In view of the stand taken by the petitionertenant in his written statement that he has no concern with the demised premises, there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order. Moreover, the ex parte proceedings ordered on 23.11.1995 were set aside subject to payment of costs which have not been paid so far. This being so, the petitioner cannot be allowed to participate in the proceedings pending before the trial Court.

In the result, there is no merit in the revision petition and the same is dismissed.

Respondent through his counsel has been directed to appear before the Rent Controller on 6.10.1997.

The trial Court is directed to dispose of the petition expeditiously and in any case not later than March 31, 1998.