C.R. No.3399 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.3399 of 2003 Date of Decision: 5.3.2008 Om Parkash .....Petitioner Vs. Gopal Krishan Dhami and another ...Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr.Ashok Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the respondent no.1. ... RAJIVE BHALLA, J Challenge in this revision is to an order dated 16.4.2003, whereby the learned Rent Controller, Amritsar, reviewed his order dated 10.5.2002. One Nirmala Devi the original tenant was survived by five sons, one of whom pre-deceased her and upon her demise, the tenancy was allegedly inherited by Om Parkash, Vinod Kumar, Naval Kishore and Sanjiv Kumar. The learned Rent Controller vide order dated 10.5.2002,directed the petitioner to amend the rent petition by impleading all legal representatives of Nirmala Devi. The respondents herein filed an application, under Section 151 CPC, praying that the said order be recalled, as an application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, praying that the legal representatives of Nirmala Devi be impleaded had already been dismissed. It was also pointed out that the revision filed against the said order was also dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court. C.R. No.3399 of 2003 2 Taking into consideration the aforementioned facts, the learned Rent Controller, recalled the order dated 10.5.2002. Counsel for the petitioner contends that after the revision petition was decided on 25.2.2002, the respondent filed an application for review of order dated 25.2.2002. While allowing the application for review, it was clarified that the order passed in revision relates to the legal heirs of the deceased Sushil Kumar, a pre-deceased son of Nirmala Devi. It is asserted that as this order came into existence after the Rent Controller pronounced the impugned order, it would be appropriate to remit the matter to the Rent Controller for adjudication afresh, as to the question of legal representatives of Nirmala Devi. Counsel for the respondent, however, asserts that as the matter had been decided in Civil Revision No.383 of 2000, the order passed by the Rent Controller does not suffer from any infirmity and should, therefore, be upheld. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. The order passed in CMs No.7108-CII of 2004 and 7110-CII of 2004 i.e., an order passed in a review petition filed by the respondents reads as follows :- “ Notice of the CM has been issued to the non-applicant- petitioner and despite the receipt of the same, he has not entered appearance. The non-applicant-petitioner is, therefore, proceeded against ex-parte. Through the instant application, learned counsel for the applicant has sought review of the order dated 25.2.2002 C.R. No.3399 of 2003 3 passed in Civil Revision No.383 of 2002, wherein the issue examined was whether or not the legal heirs of the deceased Sushil Kumar son of Nirmala Devi were necessary parties. In the final analysis, a conclusion was recorded to the effect that the legal heirs of Sushil Kumar, deceased son of Nirmala Devi were not necessary parties for the purpose of the ejectment petition filed at the hands of the applicant-respondent-landlord Gopal Krishan Dhami. The aforesaid conclusion calls for non interference and is re-affirmed Be that as it may, any factual observation recorded therein having no bearing to the aforesaid conclusion, be not taken into consideration for the adjudication of any ancillary, collateral or other controversy between the parties. The application stands disposed of accordingly.” As this order was passed after the impugned order was passed by the Rent Controller, it would be necessary to direct the learned Rent Controller to re-examine the entire controversy and render his opinion with regard to the present controversy after considering the order reproduced herein above. However, it would be necessary to notice that the order dated 10.5.2002 was passed in the absence of counsel,without notice to parties and upon a suo-moto in exercise of power by the Rent Controller. Though, a Rent Controller, may, if appropriate, pass such orders but not without affording an opportunity to the parties to present their respective contentions. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed and the orders C.R. No.3399 of 2003 4 dated 16.4.2003 and 10.5.2002 are set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned Rent Controller for a fresh decision, with liberty to the parties, to file an appropriate application, if so advised, for redressal of their grievance, if any. 5.3.2008 ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) GS JUDGE