Civil Revision No.3680 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3680 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:- 09.08.2011 Satwant Singh ...Petitioner Versus M/s Harbans Lal Ram Parkash and Co. The Mall Patiala. ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. Arun Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent despite service. RAKESH KUMAR GARG J.(Oral) As per the provision of Order 5 Rule 15, service of summons can be effected upon any adult member of the family. In view of the aforesaid provisions, service is complete. However, no one is present on behalf of the respondent. Accordingly proceeded against ex parte. Civil Revision No.3680 of 2011 This is landlord's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 22.07.2008 and 10.01.2011 of the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority,Patiala whereby, while ordering the eviction of the respondent from the tenanted` premises a rider was put on the petitioner- landlord to the effect that the petitioner shall be delivered possession only on vacation of the stay order earlier passed by this Court in Civil Revision No.3740 of 1999. Learned counsel has also brought to the notice of this Court that against the impugned orders the respondent-tenant had also filed Civil Civil Revision No.3680 of 2011 (O&M) -2- Revision No.1803 of 2011 challenging his eviction. However, the said revision petition stands dismised by this Court vide its judgment dated 15.03.2011 in Civil Revision No.1803 of 2011. Learned counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that even the stay of dispossession of the petitioner granted vide order dated 01.09.1999 passed by this Court in Civil Revision No.3741 of 1999 was vacated vide order dated 25.07.2011. This Court has perused both the aforesaid orders, photocopies of which have been produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondent has been proceeded ex parte. In view of the aforesaid factual situation, the impugned orders are modified and the rider put on the rights of the petitioner for delivery of possession as mentioned in the impugned orders, is ordered to be set aside. Allowed in the manner aforesaid. August 09, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) Jyoti 1 JUDGE