V.K.JHANJI,J - (1.) THE present revision petition is nothing, but an abuse of process of the Court and deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
(2.) EJECTMENT of the petitioner, who was a tenant on rent of Rs. 4392/- per month, was sought on the ground of non-payment of rent w.e.f. February, 1990. Ejectment petition was filed in April, 1991. On the first date of hearing, i.e. 9.10.1991, the Rent Controller assessed the costs of Rs. 100/-, but the tenant did not tender the rent or paid the costs as assessed by the Rent Controller. The tenant sought time to file written statement. The case was adjourned to 12.12.1991 for filing of written statement, but on the said date, the same was not filed. The case was again adjourned to 20.12.1991, 23.4.1992, 16.7.1992, 5.9.1992, and at last on 10.10.1992, the written statement was filed by the tenant. On filing of the written statement, the landlord filed his replication and in para 1 of the replication, it was stated that "the reply filed by the respondent and which has been placed in the file of the case is that of another petition containing six paras against the respondent pending in the court of Shri B. S. Sidhu Rent Controller, Chandigarh. It is further pertinent to mention that in the said petition pending in the court of Shri B. S. Sidhu, Rent Controller, Chandigarh respondent has not so far appeared and he has been served by affixation and by beat of drum for 22.10.1992 ....... "The averments in the reply from paras 1 to 6 do not correspond with averments of the same paras of the present petition." On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the respondent has already paid the rent upto the month of August, 1992 at the rate of Rs. 5250/- P.M. as alleged." OPR 2. Relief. No other issue was claimed or pressed at the time of framing of this issue. Petitioner took three adjournments for leading evidence, but failed to lead any evidence to prove payment of rent. The Rent Controller per force had to close evidence vide order 14.5.1993. On closing of his evidence, the petitioner filed an application for additional evidence. That application was dismissed by the Rent Controller. The said order was challenged in this Court in Civil Revision No. 2320 of 1993, but the same was dismissed by this Court on 16.9.1993. After dismissal of the revision petition, the tenant filed two more applications before the Rent Controller. In the first application, he sought for framing of some additional issue(s) and in the second application, he stated that the landlord had not supplied a correct copy of the ejectment petition at the time when summons were served upon him. He, thus, prayed that he may be allowed to file reply to the correct petition and thereafter, be allowed to lead evidence. Both the applications, i.e. application for framing of issues and the application for filing fresh written statement were dismissed by the Rent Controller. The order dismissing the application for filing of fresh written statement is being impugned in the present revision petition.
(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length, I am of the view that the Rent Controller rightly dismissed the applications being frivolous. Ejectment of the petitioner was sought on the ground of non-payment of rent. Ejectment petition was filed on 26.4.1991. The service of the tenant could only be effected for 9.10.1991. On the first date of hearing, neither the rent was paid nor the costs as assessed by the Rent Controller were tendered. After availing seven opportunities, the written statement was filed. When in replication, it was brought to his notice that the written statement was not conforming to the corresponding paras of the petition, no effort whatsoever was made by the petitioner to correct his written statement. He took three opportunities to lead evidence, but none was led and per force, the Rent Controller closed his evidence. The application for leading additional evidence was dismissed by the Rent Controller and so affirmed by this Court in civil revision. Having failed on all fronts, the tenant filed an application for permission to file fresh written statement. At this stage, when the case is fixed for arguments, it does not lie in the mouth of the tenant that the copy of the ejectment petition which was filed subsequent to the filing of ejectment petition, i.e. one which is being impugned in this revision petition, was attached with the summons. I must say that a very ingenious method is being adopted by the petitioner to delay the proceedings. By this time, the tenant is in arrears of rent of more than Rs. 1,60,000/- approximately. From all this, it is crystal clear that he wants to prolong the decision by all means. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed with costs, which are assessed as Rs. 5,000/-.;