- (1.) This is a revision filed by Des Raj and others against the order of Shri M.L. Merchea, Appellate Authority (under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949), Faridkot, dated May 21, 1977, passed in an appeal filed by Ram Lal respondent against the order of Shri R.M. Batra, Rent Controller, Mukatsar, dated January 28, 1977.
(2.) The facts of the case, relevant for the purpose of these proceedings, are like this. The premises in dispute, which is a Chaubara in a building at Malout Mandi, owned by Des Raj and Raja Ram is in occupation of Ramlal respondent as a tenant. Des Raj and Raja Ram moved an ejectment petition against the respondent on various grounds including non-payment of appears of rent and the requirement of the chaubara by the lawyer son of Raja Ram for setting up of his office of legal practice. Before the service on Ram Lal respondent could be effected, Raja Ram died. An application was filed on May 23, 1974, for impleading his legal representatives as petitioners. A notice was ordered to be issued to Ram Lal respondent for July 20, 1974, regarding the main petition for ejectment as also the application for impleading the representative of Raja Ram deceased. Instead of such notices being issued to Ram Lal, he was summoned as a witness in ejectment proceedings against him for July 20, 1974. The Process Server reported on the summons that Ram Lal appeared to be avoiding service and he, therefore, effected service by affixing the summons on the premises. In view of this report the Rent Controller ordered ex parte proceeding against him on July 20, 1974, because Ram Lal did not put in appearance on that date. On August 6, 1974, Ram Lal respondent applied for setting aside the ex parte order passed against him which application was dismissed by the Rent Controller on November 6, 1974. Ram Lal then filed an appeal against the order of the Rent Controller dated November 6, 1974, which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on October 28, 1975. The Appellate Authority further made the following observations ;- "Before parting with this case, I have to make certain observations for the guidance of the Rent Controller. Without appointing the legal representatives of Raja Ram, he has examined some witnesses on merits. This procedure is highly irregular. He will first appoint the legal representatives of Raja Ram and then give notice of the main application to Ram Lal. After that the case will be decided according to law." Ram Lal as also Des Raj and the legal representatives of Raja Ram filed separate revisions against the order of the Appellate Authority. The revision filed by Ram Lal was dismissed in limine. However, the other revision (Civil revision No. 1537 of 1975) filed by Des Raj and the legal representatives of Raja Ram was accepted on January 28, 1976 and the observations made by the Appellate Authority, and reproduced above, were set aside being without jurisdiction. The file of the Rent Controller, which had been summoned in the High Court in Civil revision No. 1537 of 1975, was returned on January 12, 1977. The Rent Controller, on receipt of the file from the High Court, summoned the landlords but not Ram Lal respondent and thereafter accepted the ejectment petition in favour of the former and against the latter by an ex parte order dated January 28, 1977. Ram Lal then filed an appeal against the ex parte order dated January 28, 1977, directing his eviction from the premises in dispute and the same was accepted by Shri M.L. Merchea, Appellate Authority, Faridkot, on May 21, 1977. It is against this order that the present revision is directed.
(3.) The leaned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the finding of the Appellate Authority that the ex parte order of ejectment passed against Ram Lal respondent cannot be sustained because it was also in favour of Raja Ram, who was admittedly dead on the date of the order, is erroneous. According to him, an order or a decree against a dead person is a nullity but not vice versa. And further, the ejectment petition had been filed by Des Raj and Raja Ram who were the joint owners and landlords of the premises in dispute. The ejectment petition on some of the grounds taken therein could be maintained by Des Raj petitioner alone, being one of the joint landlords. Assuming that the legal representatives of Raja Ram had not been brought on the file the ex parte order would be taken to have been passed in favour of Des Raj alone. I feel inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners on this point. The ejectment petition had been filed on the grounds of non-payment of rent, the premises having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and for the personal requirement of the lawyer son of Raja Ram. Assuming, the legal representatives had not been brought on the file, the ejectment proceedings will not abate inasmuch as Des Raj petitioner alone could maintain the ejectment petition on the ground of non-payment of rent and the premises having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation etc. The ground relating to personal requirement for the lawyer-son of Raja Ram could, however, not be sustained. It is, therefore, difficult to hold that the order dated January 28, 1977, passed ex parte against Ram Lal was a nullity or it could not be sustained because the legal representatives of Raja Ram had not been brought on the file.;