KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. - (1.) Present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 21st May, 2008, whereby application of the petitioner for setting aside ex-parte order of ejectment was dismissed.
(2.) TENANT was ordered to be evicted vide an ex parte order dated 6th November, 2001. An application was filed on 11th December, 2001. It was pleaded in the application that order dated 6th November, 2001 ought to be set aside, as no service of summons was effected upon the applicant. It was further averred that the rent case was filed on 18th January, 2001. Tenant was to be served through registered cover but no summons through registered cover were issued for 1st March, 2001. Again, date was fixed as 12th April, 2001 for the service of the tenant, on which date, it was ordered that correct addresses be furnished and the case was adjourned to 1st August, 2001 for service of the tenant. It is stated that the Process Server, in connivance with the landlord had given a report of refusal on the part of the tenant. A grievance was made that the tenant was not served either through Munadi or affixation or through proper manner with the summons of the said rent case.
(3.) RENT Controller had taken a view that in this case, application was filed after more than 30 days, which is a statutory period and therefore, on account of delay, order cannot be set aside. Rent Controller further held that tenant was watching the proceedings and had not joined the proceedings. This Court in Civil Revision No. 3531 of 2008, decided on 17th October, 2008 has held that in the Court of Rent Controller, provisions of Limitation Act are not applicable to the application for setting aside ex parte. It was 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., 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 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.";