CR No. 1033 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CR No. 1033 of 2009 Date of decision February 26, 2009 Narain Singh ....... Petitioner Versus Meera Rani and another ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr.. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner . **** 1. Whether reporters of 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? K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The petition for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 25.8.2004 of eviction filed for the personal requirement of the landlord was dismissed. The tenant is the revision petitioner. 2. The petition for ejectment had been filed under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 for personal requirement of the landlord among other grounds. The petitioner before the Rent Controller was a widow and after the conclusion of evidence of the petitioner from the year 2002 to 2004 the case had been adjourned for one reason or the other for examination of the respondent. Ultimately the order was passed when neither the counsel nor the party was present. The affidavit for setting aside the ex-parte order gave out a reason that the counsel did not inform the date of hearing to the party and therefore, he was not present. It was not merely a singular absence that CR No. 1033 of 2009 2 resulted an ex-parte order but there had been persisting absence on the part of the respondents at the previous hearings. The Rent Controller considered the fact that the petition had been filed in the year 2001 and the requirement of the landlord was attempted to be thwarted by deliberately delaying tactics adopted by the respondent. It found that even the so called absence of the counsel was not properly explained and the so called negligence of the counsel of the tenant was found to be in no justifiable ground for setting aside the ex-parte order of eviction. From the year 2001 till the ultimate order of the disposal it has now taken nearly eight years and the tenant is not justified now, seeking for adjudication of the case on merits. The dismissal accords with evidence placed before the Rent Controller and there is no scope for intervention in the revision petition. 3. The Civil revision petition is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 26, 2009 archana