SAWARAJ PAL Vs. JANAK RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition for revision of the order of Shri Surinder Singh Appellate Authority under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called the act) District Judge Jullundur upholding the order of Shri D. S. Controller. Jullundur dated November 8 1967 directing the eviction of Sawaraj Pal petitioner under section 13 (2) (I) of the Act was admitted to a Division Bench by the order of my Lord the Chief Justice dated April 29, 1968 and was directed to be set down for hearing as the first case on May 6, 1968 as Janak Raj respondent accepted service of notice of the petition at the Motion stage and execution of the order for eviction was stayed till the date of hearing of the revision petition.

(2.) IN order to appreciate all the points that have been urged before us, it appears to be necessary to survey the somewhat lengthy history of this case leading to the filling of this revision petition, though the ultimate points involved in the case do not appear to be at all complicated. The dispute relates to a portion of property no. E Q 253 Jullundur City, which was originally an acquired evacuee property and was purchased in a Government sale by one Gurdial Singh for Rs 25,000/-In execution of an ex parte decree for Rupee 500/-against Gurdial Singh the property was put to auction and was purchased by Janak Raj respondent for rupee 5,100/ -. The ex parte decree against Gurdial Singh was later set aside and ultimately the suit in which the decree had originally been passed was dismissed. Gurdial Singh's application for setting aside the sale in favour of the respondent was rejected by the trial Court and even his first appeal against that order failed. Gurdial Singh's plea was however, successful in his regular second appeal filed in this Court and even a letters patent Appeal preferred against that judgment by janak Raj was dismissed. This led Janak Raj to prefer a further appeal to the supreme Court which succeeded. The judgment of their Lordships is reported in janak Raj v. Gurdial Singh AIR 1967 SC 608. We are not concerned with the merits of the controversy involved in the litigation up to the stage hereinbefore mentioned, but the same is relevant only for two purposes viz, (I) that the pendency of the said litigation is stated to be the reason for the petitioner not having paid arrears of rent to Janak Raj as the petitioner was being pressed for payment of the same even by Singh and (ii) that when Janak Raj took out warrant of possession of the property, the tenant gave in writing undertaking to pay rent to Janak Raj and Swaraj Pal was thereupon allowed to continue as tenant of Janak raj in the property. Just for the sake of completing the full history of the case, it may be added that in pursuance of certain observations made in the judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court, Gurdial Singh filed an application under section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restoration of the property in dispute to him, which application was rejected by the trial Court, his first appeal failed in the District Court, and now his Execution Second Appeal No. 546 of 1968 is still pending in this Court.

(3.) THE respondent to whom I will hereinafter refer as the landlord, gave a notice, of which no copy has been produced, to Swaraj Pal, whom I will hereinafter call the tenant, which was received by the tenant on December 20, 1963 by registered post, vide postal acknowledgement exhibit A. 1. In the absence of any copy of the notice, it is impossible to say anything about it contents. The fact remains that on march 21, 1967, the landlord filed an application for the ejectment of the tenant under section 13 (2) (I) of the Act. The Rent Controller issued notice of the application returnable for April 12, 1967. When the said notice along with a copy of the application for eviction was tendered to the tenant on 31-3-1967 he raised some ill-advised frivolous objection about the spelling of his name in the notice, as a result of which the process-server returned the notice to the controller this to be sufficient service of the tenant and without recording any evidence at all, proceeded to pass on April 12, 1967, an ex parte order of ejectment in favour of the landlord against the tenant. Two days later i. e. on April 14, 1967, the tenant made an application to set aside the ex parte order. The learned Rent Controller directed notice of the application being issued to the landlord for May 2, 1967. On the same day, Mr. Chuni Lal advocate for the landlord, appeared before the Rent controller and appears to have pointed out to him the fatal defect in the order for eviction having been passed without it being supported by any evidence. Thereupon the Rent Controller recorded the presence of Mr. Chuni Lal advocate and proceeded suo motu to set aside his ex parte order dated April 12, 1967 for the eviction of the tenant and adjourned the main case for evidence t May 2, 1967. No notice of the proceedings fixed for May 2, 1967 was represented at that time by his counsel. Nor was any notice admittedly given to the tenant, as the order for proceeding ex parte against him passed on April 12, 1967 stood intact and it was only the final order of ejectment which was set aside.