- (1.) This is tenant's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 09.08.2007 passed by the Appellate Authority, Ferozepur, vide which while accepting the appeal ejectment application filed by the respondent-landlord was accepted and the petitioner was directed to vacate the demised premises and hand over the vacant possession to the respondent-landlord within two months from passing of the said order.
(2.) The present revision petition was filed before this Court on 06.10.2007 and the same came up for hearing on 08.10.2007 and notice of motion was issued to the respondent-landlord for 07.12.2007. On 09.10.2007, an application i.e.CM No. 19655-CII of 2007 was moved by the petitioner, upon which the following order was passed: C.M No. 19655-CII of 2007 in C.R.No. 5173 of 2007(O&M) Present: Ms. Anjali Kukar, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner For the reasons explained in the affidavit -supported application, the matter is pre-poned and taken up today. Notice regarding stay for the date already fixed i.e.07.12.2007. The dispossession of the petitioner from the shop in dispute shall stand stayed till further orders. Dasti on payment of usual charges. October 09, 2007 -sd- (S.D.Anand) Judge It is also necessary to notice the subsequent orders passed by this Court which read thus: Present: Ms.Anjali Kukar, Advocate for the petitioner As per report made by the Registry, notice issued to the respondent has been received unserved with the report that he has left that address. On furnishing of his correct address, fresh notice be issued to him for 21.04.2008. Dasti only. December 07, 2007 -sd- (S.D.Anand) Judge Present: Ms. Anjali Kukar, Advocate for the petitioner It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that dasti notice could not be served upon the respondent due to the latter's non-availability. As prayed for by learned counsel for the petitioner, adjourned to 11.08.2008 to enable her to furnish the correct address of the respondent and/or for taking appropriate action to effect service upon him. April 21, 2008 -sd- (Surya Kant) Judge Present: Ms. Anjali Kukar, Advocate for the petitioner The order dated 21.04.2008 has not been complied with. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays for a week's time to furnish the correct address of the respondent and/or taking appropriate action to effect service upon him. On doing so, notice issued to the respondent for 31.10.2008. 11.08.2008 -sd- (Vinod Kumar Sharma) Judge **** Present: None for the petitioner In the interest of justice, adjourned to 20.11.2008. October 31, 2008 -sd- (Mahesh Grover) Judge ***** Present: None In the interest of justice, adjourned to 02.12.2008. 20.11.2008 -sd- (Surya Kant) Judge **** Present: Mrs. Anjali Kukar, Advocate for the petitioner The learned counsel for the petitioner prays for one month's time to furnish the correct address of the respondent. On needful being done, fresh notice be issued to the respondent for 26.2.2009. 02.12.2008 -sd- (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge Court time is over. Adjourned to 21.05.2009. February 26, 2009 -sd- (K. Kannan) Judge Present: None In the interest of justice, adjourned to 3.9.2009. 21.05.2009 -sd- (K. Kannan) Judge Present: None Service is incomplete for want of correct address of the respondent. No one appears on behalf of the petitioner today as well as on the last date of hearing. In the interest of justice, adjourned to 8.12.2009. Meanwhile, let the correct address of the respondent be furnished by the petitioner within 2 weeks and thereafter, notice be sent to the respondent for the date fixed, failing which this revision petition shall stand dismissed for non- prosecution. 03.09.2009 -sd- (Surya Kant) Judge Present: Ms. Anjali Kukar, Advocate for the petitioner As per office report, the respondent has not been served for want of correct address. It is stated by counsel for the petitioner that the respondent has allegedly shifted to Delhi. Let the petitioner furnish either the correct address of the respondent and/or seek substituted service as per the law. Adjourned to 10.03.2010. 08.12.2009 -sd- (Surya Kant) Judge **** Present: None As per report made by the Registry, notice to the respondent could not be issued as correct address was not filed. It is apparent from the record that a number of adjournments had already been granted to the petitioner to furnish the correct address of the respondent. Adjourned sine die. Be listed for further appropriate orders on the filing of a CM indicating the correct address of the respondent. March 10, 2010 -sd- (S.D.Anand) Judge
(3.) Thereafter, the Registry of this Court, vide letter No. 9317 dated 26.04.2011, requested learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner to do the needful for serving respondent but the learned counsel failed to do so and thus the case has been listed before the Court for appropriate orders.;