IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 3734 of 2009. [O&M] Date of Decision: 09th July, 2009. Raj Kumar Petitioner through Mr. S.K.Arora, Advocate Versus Gaushala Committee & Anr .Respondents through None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) This Revision Petition is directed by the tenant against whom an ex-parte ejectment order was passed by the Rent Controller, Faridkot on 5.11.2003 and whose application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside the same, has also been dismissed by the Rent Controller vide his impugned order dated 15.05.2009. The Gaushala Committee, Surgapuri, Kotkapura, Tehsil & District Faridkot filed an eviction petition against the petitioner and his brother Jaswant Lal primarily on the ground of non-payment of rent w.e.f. 1.8.2000 to 31.1.2003. The petitioner and his brother did not appear despite service and obviously did not tender the arrears of rent. Resultantly, the ex-parte eviction order was passed on 5.11.2003. The petitioner thereafter filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC on 17.4.2004, inter-alia, claiming that he or his brother were never served any notice in the eviction proceedings. It was urged that the petitioner and his brother are Rickshaw Pullers and the respondent has managed to get wrong report of 'refusal' from the Process Server or regarding non- availability of his brother Jaswant Lal for evading service. The Rent Controller, after framing issues, permitted the parties to lead their evidence on the question as to whether there are sufficient grounds to set aside the ex-parte order dated 5.11.2003. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the petitioner himself in his cross- examination has admitted the fact that he received the summons in the eviction case and the fact that the summons were received 15 days in advance of the date of hearing. He has further admitted in his cross-examination that a copy of the ejectment petition was also received by him. Not only this, one Goldy, who is son of the petitioner's brother – Jaswant Lal has entered the witness box as RW2 and has demolished the story put forth by the petitioner. He has admitted that the summons were received by his father and his uncle [petitioner] and both refused to sign the same. The other son of Jaswant Lal [Jagdish Lal] has appeared as RW1 and he too has deposed against his father and the present petitioner. In view of the petitioner's own admission in his cross- examination which falsifies the plea taken by him in the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and the fact that the sons of his own brother, who was a co-tenant with him, have not supported his case. No ground to interfere with the impugned order is made out. Dismissed. July 09, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE