J.L.Gupta, J. - (1.) The Punjab State Cooperative Bank Ltd. and its Managing Director, the petitioners in this Civil Revision filed and application on April 11, 1991, under Order, 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, for setting aside the exparte ejectment order dated February 1, 1991. The application having been dismissed by the learned Rent Controller, they have approached this Court with the present revision petition. A few facts may be noticed.
(2.) The Bank is occupying the premises described as Shop-cum-office No. 18, Sector 26, Chandigarh. The respondent-landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hast Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for eviction of the petitioners. Vide order dated December 15, 1989, the learned Rent Controller directed "petition be registered. Notice to the respondent be issued for 31-1-90 on P.F. Service be effected through regd. post on filing regd. AD cover." On January 31, 1990, the learned Rent Controller noticed that no one had appeared on behalf of the present petitioners in-spite of service. He passed the following order : "Respondents have been served. Case called several times, None has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents. It is already 2-30 P M. Hence the respondents are proceeded ex-pane For ex-parte evidence case to come up on 28-2-90." Finally, after recording ex-parte evidence, the Rent Controller ordered the ejectment of the Bank from the premises in dispute.
(3.) More than two months later, on April 12, 1991, the petitioner filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C, It was inter alia averred that "the respondent-Bank was never served in the case and it appears that the ex-parte orders have been procured by the petitioner Shri Baldev Krishan by practising fraud on the Bank. The Bank never received any summons either in the ordinary course or through registered post or by any other mode of service and as such the application bank through its Managing Director was not in a position to appaar before this Hon'ble Court and defend the case. There is no due and proper service on the applicant-respondents". This application was moved by the Bank through its Managing Director petitioner No. 2. It appears from the record of the learned trial court that notice of this application was given to the respondent-landlord. A reply to this application was filed. It was inter alia averred that ''dispite the fact that service of summons, which were issued by this Hon'ble Court on 4-1-90 for the date 31-1-90, along with the photostat copy of the petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1942, dated 11-12-89 stood duly effected upon the Judgment Debtors separately on 8-1-90, as per the endorsement appearing on the front of the said summons, yet when no appearance was put in on 31-1-90 in this Hon'ble Court, after repeatedly calling the case several times till 2-30 P.M. was pleased to proceed against them ex-parte vide order dated 31-1-90......". It has also been averred that the petitioners had "wilfully and intentionally avoided putting in appearance ...". It has also been pointed out that even though the orders for recording ex-pane evidence had been passed on January 31, 1990, evidence had in fact been recorded on January 23, 1991 and the case was adjourned to January 28, 1991 for arguments. The final order was passed on February 1, 1991. The court had granted the petitioners two months time for vacation of the premises When the demised premises were not vacated till April 1, 1991, the decreeholder (present respondent) had to file an application under Order 21, Rule 35 of the C.P.C. for the issuance of warrants of possession. On April 10, 1991, the warrants were issued. The Bailiff visited the premises on April ll, 1991. The warrants were returned to the court by the Bailiff with his report dated April 11, 1991). The averment of the present petitioners that they had not been served was categorically denied.;