CR No. 1333 of 2011 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 1333 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision:25.02.2011 Som Dutt . . .Petitioner Versus Dr.Harish Sharma . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.Mukand Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J (ORAL) The tenant is in revision against the order passed by the Rent Controller, Bathinda by which he has been ordered to vacate the demised premises and the said order has been upheld by the Appellate Authority. The only grievance raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that he was illegally proceeded against ex parte on 11.1.2007 and his application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings was also dismissed by the Rent Controller on 12.6.2008. In brief, the landlord had filed eviction petition against the present petitioner/tenant on 27.8.2003, inter alia, on the ground of non-payment of rent, personal necessity and addition and alteration in the demised premises without permission. The petitioner/tenant had engaged Sh.Jai Gopal Goyal, Advocate to defend him. On 21.11.2005, the learned Rent Controller had passed the following order: “Present: Sh. N.M. Aggarwal, counsel for petitioner. None for the respondent. Petition called time and again but none has appeared on behalf of respondent. It is now 3.55 PM. The respondent is proceeded against ex parte. For ex parte evidence of the CR No. 1333 of 2011 (O&M) - 2 - petitioner, the proceedings are adjourned to 1.2.2006 Sd/- Rent Controller 21.11.2005” Thereafter the landlord had examined one of the witnesses and for remaining ex parte evidence of petitioner, the case was adjourned for 26.5.2006. On that day, the tenant filed an application for setting aside the ex parte order dated 21.11.2005 but he did not choose to pursue that application, which is apparent from the order dated 06.10.2006, which reads as under: “Present: Sh. N.M. Aggarwal, counsel for petitioner. None for the respondent. Case called time and again since morning at short intervals but neither the respondent Som Dutt nor his counsel Sh. Jai Gopal Goel, Advocate has been putting in appearance, so the application for setting aside ex parte order stand dismissed. For ex parte evidence of the petitioner, proceedings are adjourned to 10.10.2006. Sd/- Rent Controller 06.10.2006” Thereafter the evidence of the landlord continued and on 11.1.2007 another order was passed by the Court below, which reads as under: “Present: Sh. N.M. Aggarwal, counsel for petitioner. None for the respondent. Case called time and again after lunch break. None has appeared on behalf of respondent. Respondent is proceeded against ex CR No. 1333 of 2011 (O&M) - 3 - parte. For ex parte evidence of plaintiff to come up on 2.4.2007. Sd/- CJ (SD) 11.01.2007” Then the tenant/petitioner filed another application for setting aside ex parte proceedings, which was contested and ultimately on 12.6.2008, following order was passed by the learned Rent Controller: “Present: Sh. N.M. Aggarwal, counsel for petitioner. Mr.J.G. Goyal, Advocate, counsel for the respondent. Applicant/Respondent Som Dutt has moved an application along with an affidavit for setting aside ex parte proceedings dated 11.1.2007 and same copy supplied. Reply filed controverting the averments of the application inter alia on the grounds that application is not maintainable in the present form. The applicant is estopped from filing the present application by his own act and conduct. From the perusal of the file shows that Applicant/respondent has already been proceeded against ex parte by the Court vide order dated 21.11.2005 and thereafter, after the expiry of period of limitation, tenant/applicant filed an application on 24.4.2006 for seeking ex parte proceeding setting aside but after the receipt of the notice of the said application reply was filed by the landlord on 14.8.2006 and ultimately vide interim order said application was dismissed vide order dated 6.10.2006 which order has been final and binding on the parties and same cannot be registered now. Now again present CR No. 1333 of 2011 (O&M) - 4 - application has been filed by applicant/tenant/respondent illegally with a motive to harass the landlord and to prolong the decision of eviction application. Heard from the perusal of the file it reveals that tenant/applicant was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 21.11.2005. Thereafter after the expiry of period of limitation tenant / applicant has filed an application on 24.4.2006 for setting aside ex parte proceeding. Notice of said application was given to the landlord by supplying a copy of same on 26.5.2006 and reply was filed by respondent/petitioner on 14.8.2006 and on 6.10.2006 case was called several times since morning but neither the respondent Som Dutt nor the counsel Sh. J.G. Goyal, Advocate has been appeared in the Court, so the application for setting aside ex parte proceeding order stands dismissed. On 11.12.2006 the applicant/respondent again filed an application for setting aside ex parte proceeding. Notice of same was issued for 11.1.2007. On 11.1.2007 case called several time but none has appeared on behalf of respondent nor his counsel has appeared and hence, respondent was proceeded against ex parte on 11.1.2007. Case was fixed for ex parte evidence of the petitioner. Third time again applicant/respondent has filed an application for setting aside ex parte proceeding dated 11.1.2007 and same copy supplied. It has been established from the act and conduct is that he is habitual to delay the proceeding as he again and again filed the application for setting aside ex parte proceeding. A period of more CR No. 1333 of 2011 (O&M) - 5 - than 5 years have lapsed as respondent/applicant has been playing the role to setting aside the ex parte proceedings. There is no justification for setting aside the ex parte proceeding as two times respondent has not been appeared for setting aside the ex parte proceedings. It is only delaying tactics of the proceeding. Hence, the application moved by the applicant/respondent for setting aside ex parte proceeding is hereby dismissed. Now to come up on the ex parte evidence of plaintiff on 2.8.2008. Sd/- (Bhajan Ram) CJ(SD) 12.06.2008” After the evidence of the landlord was over, the learned Rent Controller allowed the eviction petition on the basis of the evidence available. But one thing is very clear that ex parte order dated 12.6.2008 was never challenged by the petitioner by way of revision petition before this Court. From this fact alone it transpired that the petitioner was only interested in delaying the eviction proceedings by first getting himself proceeded against ex parte and then filing frivolous applications one after the other to get the ex parte proceedings set aside because he knew that ultimately what order is going to be passed against him. In these circumstances, when order dated 12.6.2008 was not challenged, I do not find any justification in setting aside the order now by setting aside the ex parte proceedings passed by the Courts below. Hence, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed in limine. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) FEBRUARY 25, 2011 JUDGE Vivek