Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J. - (1.) IN an eviction petition preferred by the respondents -landlords under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, inter alia petitioner -tenant was impleaded as a party pursuant to his application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. Petitioner No. 1 is son whereas petitioner No. 2 is the wife of tenant Ashok Kumar, respondent No. 8 herein. It is a conceded fact that after impleadment of the present petitioners as respondents in the eviction petition, summons for their appearance were served but despite personal service, they did not appear and were consequently proceeded against ex -parte. Exparte proceedings were sought to be set aside by the petitioners but vide impugned order, Rent Controller had declined such request. Tenant is the firm, viz., M/s. Mahajan Traders, which has been served through its partner Ashok Kumar, who has also been impleaded in its individual capacity and is respondent No. 2 in the rent petition. It is not denied that the petitioners are also partners in the said tenant -firm.
(2.) CLOSE relationship between the parties is also a factor which cannot be ignored. Tenant firm is being represented by the partners who are father, mother and son, in -terse. When father as partner of the firm is already a party alongwith the firm, it is hard to believe that the petitioners being wife and son of partner Ashok Kumar were not aware of the pendency of the petition. Concededly, the petitioners are living at the address of respondent Ashok Kumar. In short, all the respondents are living jointly in one house. The petition is at the stage of arguments after rebuttal evidence is produced by the landlord. When the petitioners (respondents in the eviction petition) did not appear despite personal service, there was no option with the Rent Controller but to proceed against them ex -parte. Since the firm is the tenant and its cause is being espoused by its partner Ashok Kumar, defence of the present petitioners as partners of the tenant firm in the eviction petition, is not going to be different The Rent Controller has rightly given them opportunity to join the proceedings from the present stage. No ground to interfere with the impugned order is made out. Dismissed.;