NIRMAL SINGH Vs. AMAR KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS tenant's petition whose application for setting aside the ex parte ejectment order has been dismissed by the Rent Controller.

(2.) AMAR Kaur, landlady, filed the ejectment of the tenant from the shop, in dispute, inter alia on the grounds of non-payment of the arrears of rent and the subletting thereof by him without her written consent. Ex parte ejectment order on the said application against the tenant was passed on October 20, 1983. Execution of the said ejectment order was sought vide execution application dated December 20, 1983. The tenant filed the application dated February 28, 1984, under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, for setting aside the said ex parte order. It was alleged therein that he was not duly served, no process-server came to effect service on him, the landlady had not given his correct address and that he had come to know about the ejectment order against him only on February 28, 1984, when the landlady disclosed to him that she had got the ex parte decree against him and that she was going to get possession of the shop in pursuance of the warrants of possession issued by the Court. In reply to the application the allegations made therein were controverted. It was pleaded that the tenant was duly served by the process-server, but when he refused to accept the summons, he was served through munadi. On the pleadings of the parties. The learned Rent Controller framed the following issues :-

(3.) I have gone through the relevant evidence on the record. From a perusal of the order of the Rent Controller, it is quite evident that he has mainly relied upon the statement made by the tenant as JDW/1. It has been observed in the impugned order :-