J.V. Gupta, J. - (1.) The tenant-petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of the Rent Controller dated March 26, 1979 who he dismissed his application under order 9 Rule 7 of the Code of Procedure for setting aside the ex parte proceedings.
(2.) An application for ejectment of the tenant-petitioner has been by the landlord-respondent in the Court of Rent Controller on grounds of non-payment of rent and personal necessity the landlord. On the first date of the hearing the arrears of were paid and on March 29, 1978 the can was adjourned for April 1978 for filing of written statement by the tenant-petitioner. On April 1978, the learned Rent Controller passed the following order:- "Present : Counsel for the Petitioner. Respondent is not present. It is now 2.30 P. M. Therefore, the respondent is proceeded against ex pane. The petitioner is directed to product pane evidence on April 17, 1978." On April 17, 1978, the landlord-respondent closed his evidence and April 20, 1978, was the date fixed for orders. On April 1978, the tenant petitioner made an application under Order 9 Rule 7 on the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex parte ejectment proceedings. This application was contested by the landlord and on the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed : 1. Whether this application does not lie in this Court ? O.P.R. 2. Whether the application is properly verified? If not its effect ? O. P. A. 3. Whether there are sufficient cause to set aside ex parte proceedings ? O.P.A. 4. Relief'. After going through the evidence, led by the parties, the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that there is no sufficient cause to set aside the ex parte proceedings and consequently dismissed the application
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the provision of Code of Civil Procedure as such do not apply to the proceedings before the Rent Controller and, therefore, the learned Rent Controller has erred in dismissing the application for setting aside the ex parse proceedings on that ground. In support of his contentions, he cited K.L Pasrija Vs. Shri C.L. Vasessi, 1978 (1) R.C.J. 292 . What has been held in this case is given in pars 10 thereof. It has been observed, "The provisions of the Code cannot be applied to the proceedings under the Act with the rigidity, if a "good cause" as embodied in rule 7 of the Order 9 of the Code is not strictly proved by the petitioner even then he is entitled to the setting aside of the ex parse proceedings against him". It was not next contended that in the present case, the tenant-petitioner has been able to prove the sufficient cause as his mother-in-law had died and he had gone there to attend the necessary ceremonies. The Rent Controller has not acted properly in the exercise of his jurisdiction in dismissing the application of the petitioner.;