Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J. - (1.) BY way of this civil revision petition, orders dated 27.4.2006, 25.11.2009 and 19.12.2013 (Annexures P -2, P -3 and P -5 respectively) passed by the Rent Controller, Kurukshetra, whereby application of the petitioner -tenant for setting aside the order whereby he had been proceeded against ex -parte as also for setting aside the ex -parte decree of eviction against him was dismissed and also for setting aside order (Annexure P -6) dated 29.4.2014 passed by the Appellate Authority, Kurukshetra under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short, the Act), whereby appeal of the petitioner was also dismissed, are under challenge.
(2.) IN a petition preferred by the respondent -landlord under Section 13A of the Act, eviction of the petitioner -tenant was sought from the shop in dispute on the ground of non -payment of rent as also on the plea that the premises were lying closed for a continuous period of more than 8 months and were thus, not being put to the intended use. On personal service effected on the petitioner -tenant on 23.3.2006 (Annexure P -1), his non -appearance had resulted in ex -parte order against him on the date fixed for his appearance i.e. on 27.4.2006 (Annexure P -2). After appreciating evidence led by the respondent -landlord to substantiate his claim in the petition, ex -parte eviction order was passed against the petitioner -tenant on 25.11.2009 (Annexure P -3). Application (Annexure P -4) for setting aside both ex -parte orders i.e. Annexures P -2 and P -3 was moved by the petitioner -tenant on the ground that he was never served and report of his service was forged and procured one. The application was dismissed on 19.12.2013 (Annexure P -5). The appeal preferred by the petitioner -tenant was also dismissed on 29.4.2014 (Annexure P -6). It is claimed that report (Annexure P -1) of service of the petitioner -tenant on summons is a procured one as neither complete address of the petitioner -tenant was available on the summons nor the petitioner -tenant was identified before effecting service on him. It is claimed that though eviction petition was preferred against one 'Ranjit Kumar' summons in fact were shown to have been received by one 'Ranjit Singh' but the petitioner was neither 'Ranjit Singh' nor had been signing as 'Ranjit Singh'. Claiming that conduct of the respondent -landlord is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, it is urged that validity and legality of service of summons should not have been pronounced in favour of the respondent -landlord.
(3.) HEARING has been provided to the counsel for the petitioner while going through the paper book.;