MADAN MOHAN AHUJA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed by petitioner Madan Mohan Ahuja directed against the order of the learned Rent Controller, Abohar, dated 16.11.1998. The learned Rent Controller by virtue of the impugned order allowed the application filed by the respondent-Union of India.

(2.) The relevant facts are that the petitioner had filed an eviction application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, for ejectment of the respondents from the property in question. During the pendency of the petition for eviction, the respondents had been proceeded ex-parte. In the meantime, a number of witnesses were examined by the petitioner. The respondents preferred an application for setting aside of the ex-parte proceedings dated 29.1.1998. It had been asserted that the Central Government had appointed Shri M.L. Chugh, Advocate, at Ferozepur as the counsel for the respondents for conducting their cases. After the expiry of the term of Shri M.L. Chugh, Shri Raj Pal Singh Gill, Advocate, was appointed as Additional Standing Counsel for Union of India. Shri Raj Pal Singh Gill, Additional Standing Counsel, did not appear nor he informed the respondents about the proceedings in the Court. On 25.7.1998 the respondents came to know of the ex-parte proceedings. The respondents contacted the Additional Standing Counsel to appear but he failed to do so. The respondents approached the higher authorities for engaging a new counsel. In these circumstances it was prayed that the ex-parte proceedings against the respondents be set aside.

(3.) In the reply filed, the petitioner contested the application. The petitioner has alleged that on the first date of hearing rent was not tendered. The respondents were proceeded ex-parte on 29.1.1998. In the meantime, entire evidence of the petitioner had been recorded. There are no sufficient grounds for setting aside of the ex-parte proceedings.