MAHESH GROVER.J. - (1.) THE petitioner, who is landlord of the demised premises, sought eviction of the respondents/tenants on the grounds of non -payment of rent and personal necessity.
(2.) THE facts of the case would reveal that the learned Rent Controller passed an ex -parte order leading to an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC being filed by the respondents, which was dismissed by the Rent Controller, but in appeal the same was accepted, which is now the cause of grievance to the petitioner. The reason for accepting the said application given by the Appellate Court is the doubt expressed regarding effecting service upon Mohan Lal, deceased father of the respondents/tenants. It is to be noticed that Mohan Lal never denied his signatures on the summons but had put up a plea that the same were obtained on a blank paper in collusion with his brother Sohan Lal who was also a tenant in some part of the demised premises but vacated the same after the property changed hands in favour of the present petitioner from the original owner. Learned Appellate Court concluded that a fraud had been played upon the respondent tenant depriving him of his right and that material would indicate that he had no knowledge of the pendency of the proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the tenant Mohan Lal did not dispute his signatures on the summons and if the report of the Process Server is to be seen, it clearly establishes that the summons were got delivered to Mohan Lal at the residential address i.e. the demised premises. Once this fact was established on the testimony of the Process Server, then it was for Mohan Lal to bring on record the evidence that would have suggested to the contrary but he never appeared in the witness box and rather his sons who were acting as attorneys appeared and testified, and according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this would be no substitute for knowledge which is absolutely personal to the tenant.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, would rely extensively on the findings recorded by the learned Appellate Court to have the Court believe that Sohan Lal brother of Mohan Lal had played a fraud upon him by playing into the hands of the landlord from whom he had taken consideration to vacate the premises. He states that the fact that he appeared as a witness of the landlord would indicate such collusion. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the order of the Appellate Court and am of the considered view that the Appellate Court has gone on conjectures to conclude a fraud played upon Mohan Lal. Similarly, it has been largely conjectural in concluding regarding the summons being effected upon Mohan Lal. I have examined the testimony of the Process Server closely.;