Tara Singh vs Dewan Singh Puri and Others

S.S. Sodhi, J.—The impugned order of the rent controller declining to set aside ex-parte proceedings against the Petitioner-Tara Singh warrants no interference in revision.

Tara Singh and his brother Kartar Singh were tenants in the same house under the same landlady. An application for ejectment was filed against them inter alia on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent. The evidence on record shows that Tara Singh refused to accept service of summons and did not,, therefore, appear while his brother Kartar Singh contested the application by denying the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the land-lady. The arrears of rent were also not tendered. After an order of ejectment had been passed against the Petitioner and his brother, an application was then filed by Tara Singh seeking the setting aside id ex parte proceedings on the plea that he had not been duly served and it was also his case that he did not have good relations with his brother-Kartar Singh.

In support of this case, the Petitioner sought to place reliance upon the affidavit exhibit P/2 of Prem Singh to the effect that it was he who told the Petitioner about the pendency of proceedings against him. A reading of this affidavit would, however, shows that the said Prem Singh has not disclosed how he came to know of the pendency of these proceedings. It is also note worthy that he is a close relative of the Petitioner.

On behalf of the landlady-Kamaljit Kaur, on the other hand, there is the affidavit of her attorney-Surinder Puri containing the specific averment that Tara Singh deliberately evaded service of summons when he went along with the process server on October 18, 1990 to get service effected upon him. This fact is corroborated by the report of the process-server at the back of the summons. A copy of the summons along with the application was also then fixed on the demised premises.

Further, it has also come on record that service was also got effected through proclamation by beat of drum.

As regards the plea of the Petitioner that his relations with his brother Kartar Singh were strained, it would be pertinent to note that there is only the bald statement of the Petitioner to this effect Dot supported by any corroborative evidence. No particulars of any strained relations have been set-forth. There is no suggestion, there has ever been any litigation between them.

The-most important aspect of the case is, as mentioned earlier, that no arrears of rent were tendered on the first date of hearing by the brother of the Petitioner-Kartar Singh and rather the relationship of landlord and tenant was denied.

It would be apparent, therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case here that the application for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings has been moved merely with view to delay the execution of the order of ejectment passed against the Petitioner and his brother. No exception can thus be taken to the impugned order which is accordingly hereby dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.