S.S.SARON,J - (1.) C .M. No. 14974-CII of 2005 : Copy of the order dated 21.11.2000 (Annexure P-6) attached with the C.M. is taken on record. The C.M. stands disposed of. C.R. No. 3635 of 2005 : This revision petition has been filed under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 ('Act' for short) by the tenant-petitioner against the order dated 14.6.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana whereby the application of the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('CPC' for short) for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 16.1.2003 and the order dated 21.11.2000 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana whereby the petitioner was proceeded against ex parte has been dismissed.
(2.) THE landlady-respondent Smt. Raj Bhardwaj filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act seeking ejectment of the tenant-petitioner from the tenanted premises which is part of property No. B-IV-1544 situated in the area of Mishran Street, Ludhiana as detailed in the head note of the petition. The husband of the landlady-respondent, namely, Ramesh Kant Bhardwaj alias Ranbir (since deceased) rented out the portion of the property to the tenant- petitioner for residential purposes only and a lease agreement was duly executed between him and the tenant-petitioner on 25.6.1977. The rent of the premises was Rs. 150/- per month. Thereafter, the tenant-petitioner is stated to have forcibly occupied some other portion of the property and started claiming the same also as part of the tenancy. The rent was increased to Rs. 400/- per month so as to avoid any dispute in respect of the demised premises. The landlady-respondent filed the ejectment petition alleging that the tenant-petitioner has not tendered arrears of rent and that he was in arrears since 1.1.1993 @ Rs. 400/- p.m. Besides, he was under an obligation to pay house tax. It was also alleged that the tenant-petitioner was guilty of committing change of user. Besides, the demised premises had outlived its age and had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Moreover, the demised premises were required by the landlady for her own personal use and occupation and for the family members. The tenant-petitioner appeared before the Rent Controller, filed his written statement and stated that rent had been paid upto 31.8.1995 and that the petition has been filed on 9.8.1995, thus no rent was due on the date of filing the petition and the petition was not maintainable. The tenant further alleged that the landlady had wrongly claimed rent since 1.1.1993. It was also alleged that the landlady herself took Rs. 2,000/- as advance rent for five months and gave receipt on the diary of petitioner. Thereafter Rs. 1,200/- was paid to Kiran Bala on 25.8.1995 as rent for June, July and August, 1995. It was also alleged that the landlady had entered into an agreement of sale of the entire property with Smt. Laxmi Devi wife of the tenant-petitioner for a consideration of Rs. 1,75,000/- vide agreement of sale dated 17.6.1994 and an amount of Rs. 20,000/- was paid as earnest money. Smt. Laxmi Devi, it is alleged, has been ready and willing to perform her part of contract and she offered the balance sale consideration to the landlady and she (Smt. Laxmi Devi) was even present in the office of Sub-Registrar on 30.1.1995. It is further alleged that notices dated 17.1.1995 and 23.5.1997 were issued to the landlady-respondent for execution of the sale deed. Thus, virtually the landlady had no right in the property. A replication was filed by the landlady-respondent in which the allegations as made in the written statement were denied and the stand taken in the ejectment petition was reiterated. The learned Rent Controller framed the following issues :- "1. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent since 1.1.1993 along with house tax as claimed ? 2. Whether the respondent has changed user of tenancy premises without the express consent of the petitioner ? 3. Whether the premises in dispute has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation ? OPA 4. Whether the premises in dispute is required bona fide for personal use and occupation of petitioner and her family as alleged ? OPA 5. Whether Sh. Mukesh Pathak has no authority to file the present eviction application ? OPA 6. Whether the respondent has paid rent until August 1995 as alleged. If so, its effect ? OPR 7. Relief."
(3.) DURING the pendency of the case of the tenant-petitioner absented himself on 21.11.2000. The learned Rent Controller accordingly passed the following order :- "Present : Counsel for the petitioner. Case called several times since morning, neither respondent nor any body has come present. It is already 3.45 p.m. Accordingly, respondent is proceeded against (sic - ex parte). Now for ex parte evidence to come up on 19.12.2000. Sd/- RC 21.11.2000" ;