C.R.No.6718 of 2009 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.6718 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 18.4.2011 M/s Telecom Ancillaries Pvt Ltd ….Petitioner Vs. Rajiv Kumar ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M.L. Sarin, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Hemant Sarin, Advocate for the respondent. Jaswant Singh, J C.M.No.24354-CII of 2010 For the reasons stated in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. Delay of 263 days in filing the present petition is condoned. C.M.No.24353-CII of 2010 Instant application under Section 151 CPC is for treating the present revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to a petition under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as “1973 Act”). For the reasons stated in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. Let the present petition be treated as a revision petition under Section 15(6) of 1973 Act. C.R.No.6718 of 2009 By filing the present revision petition under Section 15(6) of C.R.No.6718 of 2009 #2# 1973 Act., the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 17.5.2008 passed by learned Rent Controller, Faridabad whereby the application of the petitioner filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside of ex parte order of ejectment dated 22.8.2000 has been dismissed. Facts of the case are that the petitioner was inducted as tenant at the rate of Rs.350/- per month in respect of 3 industrial sheds having covered area of 770 sq. feet situated in Faridabad. An ejectment petition was filed by the respondents, which was allowed ex parte vide order dated 22.8.2000. Later on, an application was filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC by the petitioner. Upon notice, the same was opposed. After considering the rival contentions of both the parties and the pleadings, the learned Rent Controller dismissed the application, hence the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents- landlord did not give the complete address of the petitioner for service of summons in the ejectment petition and as such the service was never effected on the petitioner-tenant. It is further submitted that the substituted service by way of publication in the newspaper “Daily Mewat” is also not a proper service as the Mewat is a different district and the said newspaper is approved for the District Mewat only whereas the property in dispute is situated in District Faridabad and ejectment proceedings were initiated within the jurisdiction of District Faridabad and as such, the so-called substituted service by way of publication is not legally acceptable under the provisions of CPC. It is further submitted that the reasoning adopted by the learned trial Court while dismissing the application by way of impugned order that Sh. P.K. Shukla, Director of Company was not the authorized person to file or conduct the suit on behalf of the applicant-Company is not C.R.No.6718 of 2009 #3# legally sustainable. It is further submitted that the finding of learned Rent Controller that the application was barred by limitation is also legally not sustainable. On the other hand, the impugned order is strongly defended by the counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents submit that the impugned order is legal and valid and does not warrant any interference by this Court. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book, this court does not find any merit in the present petition and the same deserves dismissal. Petitioner-Company inducted as a tenant and was in arrears of rent w.e.f 17.10.1989. Ex parte ejectment was ordered by learned Rent Controller vide order dated 22.8.2000 due to non-payment of arrears of rent. Thereafter, execution petition was filed and the respondent-landlord took the possession of the premises in dispute on 25.11.2000 and inducted a new tenant on 29.12.2000. Even in paragraph of the present revision petition, the petitioner has admitted that the possession of the premises in dispute had been taken prior to 26.12.2000 and the relevant paragraph reads as under: “4. That on 26.12.2000 when workers of applicant petitioner went to the demised premises to put their machine, it was found that possession of the demised premises has been taken by the respondent.” Thereafter, on 8.1.2001, an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was filed and the learned Rent Controller while deciding the application has framed the following issues: “1. Whether the ex parte decree dated 22.8.2000 is liable to be set aside?OPA 2. Whether the application is not maintainable?OPR C.R.No.6718 of 2009 #4# 2-A Whether the application for setting aside the ex parte order of ejectment dated 22.8.2000 is time barred? OPR (Additional issue framed vide order dated 27.11.2007) 3. Relief.” Learned Rent Controller decided issue No.1 to the extent that service effected through publication was without adopting proper procedure and as such the petitioner-tenant was not duly served. So far as the issue No.2 is concerned, the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that Sh. P.K. Shukla was not competent to file the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC on behalf of the tenant-petitioner as he was having down the limited rights to sign papers of case and to engage counsel by way of resolution (P.1). Learned Rent Controller has further observed that application dated 8.1.2001 is not even verified and consequently the issue No.2 was decided against the petitioner and in favour of respondent. Issue No.2-A was regarding limitation and the same was decided against the petitioner. It is an admitted fact that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the ejectment of the petitioner has been ordered by the learned Rent Controller while passing the ex parte order dated 21.8.2000. Admittedly, for the last more than 10 years, new tenant is occupying the premises in dispute. There is no petition for prayer for restitution of possession. The petitioner has neither placed on record the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC nor has substantiated that a plea was raised for restitution of possession before the Rent Controller and the same has not been considered. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, present revision petition is only a futile attempt by the C.R.No.6718 of 2009 #5# petitioner-tenant to challenge the impugned order at this stage. No illegality or perversity can be found with the impugned order passed by the learned Rent Controller warranting any interference. Dismissed. April 18, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE