Civil Revision No.3992 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3992 of 2011 Date of decision 25.7.2011. Hari Singh ..... Petitioner. versus Roop Narain ...... Respondent. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C.PURI Present : Mr. J.P.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. K.C.PURI . J. Hari Singh-respondent-tenant has directed the present revision petition against the judgment dated 12.5.2011 passed by learned Appellate Authority, Ludhiana against the order dated 23.2.2010, vide which the appeal preferred by the tenant-respondent was dismissed. The facts in brief are that petitioner is a tenant. Respondent Roop Narain filed eviction petition against the petitioner demanded arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.2.1996 to 31.1.1999 along with house tax and interest. The petitioner has taken a room on rent at the rate of Rs.250/- per month and installed flour mill. He was proceeded against ex-parte. He filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte order of eviction dated 25.5.2002. The Rent Controller dismissed the said Civil Revision No.3992 of 2011 2 application vide detailed order dated 23.2.2010. The petitioner filed appeal before the Appellate Authority which too was dismissed on 12.5.2011. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid orders passed by the Courts below, the petitioner-tenant has preferred the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. The application under order 9 Rule 13 CPC can only be accepted in case the tenant is able to prove that he was not duly served. Both the Courts below have returned a finding that notice to the applicant- petitioner was issued on 14.10.2000 for 10.3.2001. The same was duly served upon him. However, on 10.3.2001, the Presiding Officer of the Court was on leave and the case was adjourned to 20.7.2001. The petitioner had the opportunity to appear before the Rent Controller on 10.3.2001 as he was duly served prior to that day. Thereafter, the case was fixed for 19.10.2001. Notice of the application was issued for 15.1.2002 which was duly signed by him. The service to the applicant was duly recorded in the order dated 15.1.2002. So, on that day also, the tenant/petitioner has not appeared before the Court. On 15.1.2002, the Rent Controller again issued notice to the applicant by way of summons as well as through registered post for 25.2.2002. Copy of the acknowledgment duly served was received. Subsequently, the Court ordered to summon tenant through munadi vide order dated 25.2.2002. The Munadi was effected and the tenant was , which was also duly served. So, in these circumstances, ex-parte eviction order Civil Revision No.3992 of 2011 3 has rightly not been set aside by both the Courts below. It would highly unjust to the landlord if in spite of service of tenant by four times, the ex- parte proceedings are set aside against him. In view of the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below that the tenant has been duly served, there is no merit in the present revision petition, the same stands dismissed. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. ( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE July 25 , 2011 sv