Civil Revision No.3483 of 2008 (O&M) - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Civil Revision No.3483 of 2008 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 19.08.2009 **** Balbir Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. Kulwant Singh and others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** Present: Mr. Ashish Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner **** SURYA KANT J.(ORAL) This Revision Petition is directed by the petitioner tenant/Judgement Debtor against whom an ex parte eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller, Amritsar on 16th February, 2001 and whose application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside that ex parte ejectment order has also been dismissed by the Rent Controller vide order dated 13th December, 2005, after holding that the petitioner failed to appear deliberately in the Eviction Petition despite having been duly served. As is revealed from the impugned order dated 13.12.2005, the petitioner raised two contentions for setting aside the ex parte order. Firstly, he urged that he was inducted as a tenant by Mahinder Kaur and not by the respondents, therefore, no ejectment application, at the instance of the respondents was maintainable. His second plea was that no notice was ever received by him in the eviction proceedings as he was away to Civil Revision No.3483 of 2008 (O&M) - 2 - Bombay due to business work at the time when the summons were allegedly sent to him by the Rent Controller, Amritsar. Both these contentions have been repelled by the Rent Controller for more than one good reason. The plea that the petitioner was inducted as a tenant by Mahinder Kaur and not by the respondents could be agitated by him in the Eviction Petition only where he did not appear and contest the same. No such plea could be entertained while deciding an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. Similarly, the Rent Controller has found, as a matter of fact, that the Process Server did effect service of notice upon the petitioner and he submitted his report in the discharge of his official duties being public servant on fact findings. Nothing has been proved by the petitioner to show that the report of the Process Server was baseless, false or that he was actually never served through any notice issued by the Rent Controller, Amritsar. In these circumstances, no interference in the impugned order is called for. Dismissed. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 19.08.2009 shonkar