C.M.No.20824 CII of 2006 and C.R. No.5467 of 2006 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.M.No.20824 CII of 2006 and C.R. No.5467 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision: 4.2.2008 Lata Kali and others .....Petitioners Vs. Vijay Kumar ...Respondent .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Ms. Anju Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. ... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) CM No.20824-CII of 2006 For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 50 days in refilling the appeal is condoned. C.R. No.5467 of 2006 Challenge in this revision petition is, to an order dated 17.1.2006 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana and the order dated 1.5.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana. The respondents filed a petition for ejectment of the petitioner, on the grounds of non payment of rent, ceasing to occupy the property since 1.7.1987 and additions and alterations in the demised premises that materially impaired the value and utility of the building. The learned Rent Controller passed an ex-parte ejectment order against the petitioner on 4.2.1989. The petitioner filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte order on 30.5.1989. The respondents contested the petition and the learned trial Court framed the following issues :- C.M.No.20824 CII of 2006 and C.R. No.5467 of 2006 (O&M) 2 “1. Whether there are sufficient grounds for setting aside ex- parte decree dated 4.2.1989 ? 2. Whether the application is within time and if not whether the applicant is entitled to condonation of delay ? OPA 3. Relief.” The learned trial Court held that the petitioner had failed to establish sufficient ground to enable the Court, to condone the delay and for setting aside the ex-parte order. An appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn as it was not maintainable. It would be necessary to mention here and as admitted by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been dispossessed, pursuant to orders passed in execution. Counsel for the petitioner contends that she has produced voluminous evidence that would be sufficient to infer sufficient cause for delay in filing the ejectment petition. The learned Rent Controller has considered the matter in detail, examined the voluminous evidence produced by the petitioner and arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner had failed to establish sufficient cause. These findings returned by the Rent Controller do not call for interference. The discretion exercised by the learned Rent Controller is neither perverse nor illegal. Even otherwise, the ex-parte ejectment order was passed in the year 1989 and pursuant to warrants of possession, the petitioner has been dispossessed long ago. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. 4.2.2008 ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) GS JUDGE