- (1.) The respondent-landlord sought eviction of the petitioner tenant on two grounds: (i) non-payment of arrears of rent; and (ii) the shop was unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The tenant was served for 24th of Jan, 1977. That day was suddenly declared as a holiday and therefore, the Courts remained closed that day the case was put up before the Rent Controller on the 25th Jan, 1977, on which date he passed the following order:- "File put up today. Defendant be re-summoned on filing of process- fee and also by beat of drum on filing of fee with in three days."
(2.) On 25th Feb, 1977, when the case was called, the following order was passed:- "The respondent has been served by beat of drum but is not present. He is proceeded ex parte. Ex parte evidence be produced on 9th Mar., 1977."
(3.) On 29th Apr. 1977 ex parte ejectment order was passed against the tenant. Thereafter on 26th July, 1977, the tenant filed the application under O. 1X, R. 13, Civil P. C. for setting aside the ex parte order of 25th Feb., 1977 and 29th Apr., 1977. The petition was opposed on two grounds:-- i) that the tenant had not shown sufficient cause to set aside the ex parte order; and ii) that the petition was time barred. While the Rent Controller rejected the second objection following a D. B. decision in Subhash Chander v. Rehmat Ullah, 1973 Ren CJ 688 (Delhi) the first objection found favour with him and the petition was dismissed.;