Kapal Dev vs Sant Singh

M.R. Sharma, J.—The grievance made in the petition is that on July, 15 1977, an ex parte order of ejectment was obtained by the Respondent against the Petitioner. On 5.2.1978 the Petitioner was sought to he ejected from the shop even though it happened to be a Sunday On 8.2.1978 he applied for the setting aside of the exparte order The Controller came to the conclusion that the notice was served upon the Petitioner but a copy of the ejectment petition was not handed ver to him at that time. On this basis, the learned Rent Controller declined to set aside the exparte proceedings.

2 The Petitioner has come up in revision before me. In response to notice of motion, Mr. Puri has appeard on behalf of the Respondent. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner urges that the eviction of the Petitioner was being sought under the provisions of a special statute and no notice could be deemed to have been served upon the Petitioner in law unless he had been handed over a copy of the ejectment application.

On the other hand, Mr. Purl submitted that the Respondent had served a notice upon the Petitioner calling Upon him to pay arrears or rent and water charges and in his failure to do so he filed an application for eviction under this Haryana (Urban Control of Rent and eviction) Act. which was allowed. The argument raised is that even though this order was exparte the Petitioner knew of the liability because regarding that a notice had been served upon him.

4 After giving my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the Bar, I am of the view that this submission deserves to succeed The said Act is a special statute giving summary powers to the serial Tribunal to dispose of disputes under the said Act. It is settled law that unless and untill a copy of the ejectment petition companise(sic) the summons the service of the notice cannot be said to be complete, If the Petitioner had not been served in as ordance (sic) law, then the learned Rent Controller was under an obligation to set aside the exparte proceedings

So far as the objection raised by Mr. Puri about the knowledge of the liability of payment of arrears of rent by the Petitioner is concerned, I might add that the statute lays down a special procedure for thin determination. After the due service of the summons, the tenant has to appear in Court and claim that the rent, the costs and interest etc. should be determined by the Rent Controller. There after he has to tender this amount Since this has not been done in the instant case, it cannot be that the Petitioner had legal notice of the entire liability. I, therefore, allow this petition, set aside the exparte order passed against the Petitioner and direct the learned Rent Controller to redecide the original case in accordance with law the amount of Rs 2400/-paid in this Court by thy Petitioner in these proceedings would not give rise to a plea of estopped against the Respondent on this account

The partus through their learned Counsel are directed to appear before the learned Rent Controller on June 2, 1989, on which date the Respondent shall give a copy of the ejectment petition to the Petitioner whereafter it shall be open to the Petitioner to make tender of the arrears of rent if any, or found due on that date. No costs.