CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(1990) 08 P&H CK 0010

Nagwant Singh vs Ved Raj

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 6 August 1990 · Citation: (1991) CivCC 316 : (1991) 1 RCR(Rent) 94

HON’BLE JUDGES
G.R. Majithia, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
C.R. No. 782 of 1989

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 371 words

G.R. Majithia, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller wherby allowed the application of tenant for setting aside the ex-parte ejectment order dated August 2, 1985.

2.

The Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as landlord) filed an application for ejectment from the disputed premises against the Respondent (hereinafter referred to as tenant). An ex-parte order of eviction was passed against the tenant on August 2, 1985. The tenant filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte order on the ground that he was not validly served and that the process serving agency made false report on the back of the summons in convinance with the landlord.

3.

The landlord controverted the allegations made in the petition and raised preliminary objection that the application is time barred and that the tenant has delivered the possession. It was also denied that he got made false reports on the back of the summons in connivance with the process serving agency.

4.

The pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues :

1.

Whether there is sufficient grounds for setting aside the ex-parte ejectment order dt. 2-8-1985.

2.

Whether application is within time? OPA

3.

Relief.

5.

The Rent Controller answered issue No. 1 in favour of the tenant and issue No. 2 was answered against the landlord and as a result thereto ex-parte order of eviction was set aside. The learned Counsel for the landlord submits that substituted service was effected by proclamation. The report shows that the process server in a loud voice announced the tenant should appear, in the court of Subordinate Judge A.S. Kathuria at 10 A.M. on March 24, 1984. The report per se shows that substituted service was irregular. It does not indicate that the service was irregular. It does not indicate that the service was effected by beat of drum in the area where the tenant resided. It also does not show who made the proclamation by beat of drum. The Rent Controller was not satisfied that the service was validly effected on the tenant. I do not find any infirmity in the order of the Rent Controller. The same is just and calls for no interference. The revision petition is dismissed.