J.V.GUPTA,J - (1.) THIS petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller dated 23rd February, 1988 whereby the application filed on behalf of the tenant for setting aside the ex parte order dated 11th March, 1987 directing to proceed ex parte against the tenant was dismissed.
(2.) EJECTMENT application was filed on 2nd January, 1987 by the landlord Ram Sarup against his tenant Darshan Singh. The ground of ejectment was non-payment of arrears of rent with effect from 1st March, 1985 to January, 1987. Summons were issued to the tenant for appearance on 11th March, 1987. He was personally served but in spite of that he failed to be present on that day. Therefore, the Rent Controller ordered exp arte proceedings against him. 13th April, 1987 was the date fixed for ex parte evidence. On that day application for setting aside the earlier order dated 11th March, 1987 was filed on behalf of the tenant which has now been dismissed by the impugned order. It is no more disputed that the tenant was personally served for 11th March, 1987. That being so no meaningful argument could be raised on behalf of the petitioner to challenge the impugned order. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 13th April, 1987 he tendered the arrears of rent with costs and interest assessed by the Rent Controller but the landlord refused to accept the same. He, therefore, argued that the first date of hearing would be when the costs were assessed by the Rent Controller and that being so no eviction order could be passed against him. In support of his contention he cited Tara Chand v. Sheo Parshad, 1989(1) RCR 254 and Shamlal v. Atma Nand Jain Sabha (Regd.) Dal Bazar, AIR 1987 SC 197.RCR On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that whether the tender was valid or not will be the matter to be decided by the Rent Controller and not by this Court. The present controversy is also only whether the order dated 11th March, 1987 proceeding ex parte against the tenant was valid or not.
(3.) DURING the argument it was stated at the bar that during the pendency of this petition ex parte ejectment order was passed against the tenant and an appeal against the said order is pending before the Appellate Authority.;