J.V.GUPTA, J. - (1.) THIS petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller dated 19th February, 1986, whereby the application of the tenant for setting aside the ex parte proceedings ordered on 5th October, 1974, was dismissed.
(2.) THE landlord, Ruldu Ram, filed the ejectment application against his tenant Rajinder Kumar on 20th July, 1984. The only ground taken for ejectment was non-payment of arrears of rent with effect from 1st June, 1982. Notice of this application was given to the tenant for 29th August, 1984. It appears that no summons were issued for that date, and, therefore, fresh summons were ordered to be issued along with registered cover for 5th October, 1984. On 5th October, 1984, the learned Rent Controller passed the following order :- "Rajinder Kumar, respondent, has been served personally for today but he is not present. It is 4 p.m. The respondent is hereby proceeded against ex parte. The case is adjourned to 22nd December, 1984 for ex parte evidence of the applicant. The tenant moved the application on 21st March, 1985, for setting aside the said order directing ex parte proceedings. It was stated therein that the tenant came to know about the ex parte proceedings against him when he along with his father Kali Ram had gone to the house of the landlord in the presence of his father Banarai Dass for payment of arrears of rent which was due from 1st December, 1984, and the landlord refused to accept the same on the ground that an order of ejectment had been passed against him, and so he will not accept the rent at this stage. On this, the tenant approached his counsel Shri Inder Singh Waraich, Advocate, and on verification he came to know about the next date of the case when he moved the necessary application. In reply filed on behalf of the landlord to the said application, it was pleaded that the tenant was served personally, and he did not appear intentionally as he was not in a position to pay arrears of rent. The learned Rent Controller after framing the issues and allowing the parties to lead evidence came to the conclusion that there were no sufficient grounds to set aside ex parte proceedings. It was also held that the application was barred by time as it was not filed within a period of 30 days. Dissatisfied with the same the tenant has filed this petition here. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that alongwith the summons the tenant was never served with a copy of the application, and, so, that was no service in the eye of law no ex parte proceedings could be taken on that basis. In order to substantiate this contention, he referred to the copy of the ejectment application lying in the file of the Rent Controller which is marked 'C'. According to the learned counsel, the copy filed by the landlord for the service of the tenant was never sent along with the summons, and, therefore, it had been wrongly reported by the Process-server that the copy had been given. Thus, argued the learned counsel, there being no due service, it was a sufficient ground to set aside the ex parte proceedings. It was further contended that the question of limitation did not arise in the circumstances. In support of his contention, he referred to Tirlok Singh v. Smt. Ganga Devi 1983(2) RCR 226: 1983(1) RLR 688 and Inderjit Pal v. Shanker 1985 (1) RCR 508; 1985 PLR 377. It has been held in these authorities that "the Rent Controller is not a Court, and being an officer person designata specially authorised to adjudicate upon disputes relating to urban property concerning ejectment and determination of fair rent of urban properties, the provisions of the Limitation Act are not applicable to the proceedings before him." Further, it was held in Tirlok Singh's case (supra) that a copy of the ejectment application must be served along with the summons, and in the absence thereof there cannot be any due service.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the landlord/respondent submitted that the tenant had been duly served as the summons bore his signatures and the copy of the ejectment application was also given to him at that time whereas the copy lying in the file of the Rent Controller was the second copy because, according to him, the landlord was supposed to file two copies of the ejectment application along with the original application.;