Civil Revision No. 5972 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 5972 of 2008 Date of Decision: 17.8.2010 Rattan Lal …Petitioner Versus Sushil Kumar and Another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Bikramjit Singh, Advocate for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) On the eviction petition, filed by the respondent and his mother Smt. Shakuntla Devi, on7.4.1997, the Rent Controller, Amritsar, had passed an ex parte ejectment order against the petitioner. The petitioner had filed an appeal and the same was dismissed as withdrawn by him on 27.9.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court. The petitioner has filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC for recalling the ex parte order. The Rent Controller, Amritsar, dismissed the said application on the ground that the witnesses have specifically deposed that the petitioner refused to accept the service. The Rent Controller relied upon the testimony of RW.2 Ram Saroop, Process Server, who deposed that summons of Rattan Lal and Panna Lal were entrusted to him. He went to effect Civil Revision No. 5972 of 2008 2 service upon them but they refused to receive the summons and he made the affixation. He proved the summons Ex.R3 and report made thereupon Ex.R4. RW.1 Gopal Singh proved that the munadi (proclamation) was made and report has also been made to this effect. The Court further came to a conclusion that the application for recalling the ex parte order was filed. Thus, the application for recalling of the ex parte order was dismissed on 27.1.2006. Learned counsel for the respondent/landlord has submitted that the petitioner has not been paying even a single penny since June 1998. An application has been filed wherein a prayer has been made that this Court should determine the mesne profits at the prevalent market rent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that instead of determining the application, the present revision petition be decided. From these circumstances, it can be safely inferred that the tenant is not interested to pay the arrears of rent, which have been accumulated since June 1998. Thus, this Court cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner and there is no reason to disturb the well reasoned findings recorded by the Rent Controller, who had rightly passed the ex parte ejectment order. Hence, no ground is made out to recall the ex parte order and the present revision petition is dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge August 17, 2010 “DK”