IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.73 of 2008 Date of Decision:- 22.04.2008 Mohd.Jamil @ Jhila ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.Arihant Jain, Advocate. vs. Yasmin ....Respondent(s) through Mr.Ghulam Nabi Malik, Advocate. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 10.11.2007 passed by the Rent Controller, Malerkotla whereby an application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC for setting aside the order dated 4.10.2006 vide which the petitioner was proceeded against ex-parte in an eviction petition, has been dismissed. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner is a tenant under the respondent in a shop situated at near the Kamal Cinema, Malerkotla. The above-stated shop was purchased on 7.2.2003 by the respondent from one Dalip Kaur, who inducted the petitioner as a tenant. Thereafter, the respondent filed an eviction petition against the petitioner on the ground of non-payment of rent. The petitioner, however, did not appear despite the alleged service and was proceeded against ex-parte. C.R. No.73 of 2008 -2- Subsequently, he moved an application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC to set aside the ex-parte proceedings but the said application has been dismissed, giving rise to the present revision petition. Notice of motion was issued and as an interim measure the petitioner was directed to deposit the entire arrears of rent along with a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards tentative arrears of interest. In deference to the said order, it is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner, and is not disputed by learned counsel for the respondent, that the petitioner has tendered the arrears of rent upto April, 2008, at the rate of Rs.350/- per month. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, contends that the agreed rent is Rs.850/- per month which fact, however, is disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the order vide which the petitioner was proceeded against ex-parte, is liable to be set aside and he deserves to be permitted to join the eviction proceedings. Consequently, the impugned order dated 10.11.2007 is set aside and as a result thereof, the original order dated 4.10.2006 vide which the petitioner was proceeded against ex-parte is also set aside. Resultantly, the petitioner shall be granted only one opportunity to file his written statement, however, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/-. Regarding the dispute over the rate of rent and with a view to protect the interest of the respondent-landlady, it isdirected that the petitioner shall furnish an adequate security to the satisfaction of the C.R. No.73 of 2008 -3- Rent Controller within a period of two months. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Rent Controller on 23.5.2008. Disposed of. April 22, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE