KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. - (1.) Mahorth Singh landlord had filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, seeking eviction of the tenant. Vide order (Annexure P-2) dated 21st August, 2001, Rent Controller had ordered ex-parte ejectment of the petitioner tenant. An application (Annexure P-3) was filed by Sukhdev Singh under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC, praying that ex-parte decree be set aside. It was stated in the application that Sukhdev Singh was not served in any manner whatsoever, no Process Server ever approached him with the summons of the Court nor any substituted service was effected and that he never refused to accept the service of the summons. It was further stated by Sukhdev Singh that he is owner in possession of the disputed property from the last more than 40 years and no question arises of his being a sub-tenant under respondent No. 1 Mahorth Singh. It was stated that the ejectment order was passed on 21st August, 2001. It was further stated that when Mahorth Singh came to take possession, he learnt about the ex-parte decree and therefore, the application was filed within limitation on 10th April, 2002.
(2.) THE application for setting aside ex-parte order was rejected vide impugned order dated 22nd July, 2008. The Court held that from the oral evidence adduced, applicant Sukhdev Singh has failed to prove sufficient grounds for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 21st August, 2001. The application was not maintainable as it was filed after a period of one year and otherwise also the same was not maintainable in the present form. This Court in Civil Revision No. 3531 of 2008, decided on 17th October, 2008, had held as under : "Counsel for the petitioner has stated that it has been held by this Court in 'Inderjit Pal v. Shankar', 1985(1) RCR(Rent) 508 (P&H), that provisions of the Limitation Act are not applicable to the application for setting aside ex- parte order. It was further held that no limitation has been prescribed by the Act for this purpose. Consequently, the finding that application for setting aside ex-parte order is barred by limitation, cannot be sustained. The view taken in Inderjit Pal's case (supra) has also been reiterated in 'Brij Mohan Aggarwal v. Laxmi Narayan @ Lachhu', 2001(1) RCR(Rent) 128 (P&H) and it was held as under : " 5. A Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Subhash Chander v. Shri Rehmat Ullah, 1972 Rent Control Reporter 977 was concerned with relevant provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Under the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act, the Court of the Controller is not for all practicable purposes a Court nor the Code of Civil Procedure in entirety applies with all vigour and strength. It was held that keeping in view this fact, the provisions of Indian Limitation Act would also not be attracted. Same view prevailed with this Court in the case of Inderjit Pal v. Shankar, 1985(1) Rent Control Reporter 508 and it was held :- "It is now well settled that the Rent Controller is not a court. He is an officer persona designata, specially authorised to adjudicate upon disputes relating to urban property concerning ejectment and determination of fair rent of urban properties. The provisions of Limitation Act are not applicable to the proceedings before the Rent Controller exercising jurisdiction under the Act. The provisions of the Act are substantially the same as the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called the Punjab Act)". 6. That being the position in law, the Controller could not have dismissed the petition on the ground of limitation but was competent to consider if there is inordinate delay and laches."
(3.) A tenant cannot be evicted without affording reasonable opportunity to defend his case. Fair play demands that sufficient opportunity should be granted to him to project his case before the Rent Controller. Accordingly, present revision petition is accepted and the order dated 21st August, 2001 passed by the Rent Controller whereby eviction of the tenant was ordered ex parte is set aside. Parties are directed to appear before the Rent Controller on 15th January, 2009. However, in this case the landlord ought to be compensated, in order to balance the equities. Mr. Sandhir states that he is ready to pay the costs. Costs is assessed at Rs. 5,000/-. Same be paid on the date of appearance before the Rent Controller. On deposit of the cost, Rent Controller may decide the eviction petition on merits, preferably within nine months after the receipt of certified copy of this order. With these observations, present revision petition is allowed. Petition allowed.;