CR No. 1726 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 1726 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 1.8.2011 ... Madan Lal ................Petitioner vs. Bikramjit Singh and another .................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh. R.P. Kansal, Advocate for the petitioner Sh. Nitin Thatai, Advocate for the respondents ... K.C. Puri, J. This is a revision petition directed by respondent before the Rent Controller, against the order dated 8.2.2011 passed by the Rent Controller, vide which the application preferred by the respondent, now revisionist, has been dismissed. Briefly stated, Bikramjit Singh filed an ejectment petition against Kulwinder Singh and Madan Lal on various grounds including the ground of sub-letting by Kulwinder Singh in favour of Madan Lal. Madan Lal was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 25.3.2004 passed by the Rent Controller. The rent petition was filed on 30.1.2003. The summons were issued to respondents many CR No. 1726 of 2011 -2- times. On 29.7.2003, summons of respondent No.2 before the Rent Controller i.e. Madan Lal, who is now petitioner, received back with the report of refusal. Thereafter, proclamation by way of beat of drum (Munadi) was effected, but inspite of proclamation, he did not appear before the Rent Controller and was proceeded against ex parte on 25.3.2004. Petitioner filed an application for setting aside the order dated 25.3.2004, which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 8.2.2011. I have heard counsel for both the sides and have also gone through record of the case. The rent petition is pending since 2003. The summons were sent to the revisionist and he refused to accept the service of summons. The Rent Controller, thereafter, summoned him through Munadi. Munadi was effected and ultimately, he was proceeded against ex parte on 25.3.2004. From the perusal of the record, it is revealed that in order to establish the ground of sub-letting the landlord, now respondent, filed an application for appointment of Local Commissioner. The Local Commissioner visited the spot and submitted his report. The Local Commissioner recorded the presence of the person present at the spot at the time of his visit on 6.2.2003. This Court in authority reported as Brij Lal vs. Shiv Mohan and others 1989 (2) RCR (Rent) 416, held that where the tenant refuses to accept the summons and substituted service by Munadi is effected, in that case no ground for setting aside the ex parte order is made out. It cannot be believed that revisionist has no knowledge about his ex parte order. During the CR No. 1726 of 2011 -3- course of arguments, it has come on the record that case is pending since 2003 and the tenant is stated to have been delaying the proceedings of the case. So, in view of the above discussion, no ground for setting aside the ex parte order dated 25.3.2004 is made out. However, it is made clear that petitioner can join the proceedings at this stage before the Rent Controller. It is further made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled to seek the relief for filing written statement or to lead evidence, if the stage of leading the evidence of respondents is over. Consequently, the revision petition stands dismissed with the above said observation. ( K.C. Puri ) 1.8.2011 Judge chugh