J.V.GUPTA, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller, Phillaur, dated September,9, 1985, whereby the application under Order 9 rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called the Code) for setting aside the ex parte ejectment order dated December 12, 1983, was allowed.
(2.) JAGAN Nath Verma, landlord-petitioner filed the ejectment application against Shrimati Amarjit Kaur and her son Sarabjit Singh. He was proceeded ex parte vide order dated July 29, 1982, because he had failed to turn up on that date despite his service through munadi by beat to drum. ALthough, Shrimati Amarjit Kaur contested the ejectment application in the beginning, yet, later or, she suffered an ex parte ejectment order on December 12, 1983. When the execution of the ex parte ejectment order was sought, she got the application, under Order 9 rule 13 of the Code, filed by her son Sarabjit SIngh, on the allegations that at the time of the filing of the ejectment application, he was a minor and since no guardian was appointed, he could not be proceeded against ex parte and on that ground alone, the ex parte evition order was liable to be set aside. The said application was contested by the landlord. However, the learned Rent Controller found that no ex parte proceedings could be legally initiated against Sarabjit Singh because he was a minor at the time of the filing of the ejectment application. Consequently, the ex parte ejectment order dated December 12, 1983, was set aside vide impugned order. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as a matter of fact, Sarabjit Singh, was not a minor at the time of the filing of the ejectment application and in any case, his mother, Shrimati Amarjit Kaur was thereto to contest the same, who was duly served, but ultimately, she suffered an ex parte ejectment order on December 12, 1983. Thus argued the learned counsel, the minority of Sarabjit Singh, if any, was of no consequence and that the present petition was a delaying tacties on their part.
(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find no merit in this revision petition.;