CR No.4379 of 2010 (O&M) -1- ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.4379 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:16.05.2011. Krishan Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Puran Chand ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. The tenant is in revision against the orders of the Courts below by which his application for setting aside the ex-parte order has been dismissed. In brief, the landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 [for short “the Act”], inter alia, on the grounds of non-payment of rent and personal necessity. The tenant was allegedly served, but he did not appear and was proceeded against ex-parte on 23.03.2006. The learned Rent Controller, after taking into account the ex-parte evidence of the landlord, ordered eviction of the tenant from the demised premises (house) on 14.05.2007. The tenant filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 23.03.2006 and ex-parte eviction order dated 14.05.2007 on 05.09.2007 on the ground that he was not served. The said application was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller vide her order dated 01.06.2009 in which she had observed that summons were duly received by the tenant on 12.12.2005 as is evident from the report of the CR No.4379 of 2010 (O&M) -2- ***** Process Server Baldev Singh who had appeared as RW1. The learned Rent Controller has also observed that “on comparison with naked eyes, this Court is of the considered view that signatures of applicant/respondent Krishan Kumar appended on the back of summons issued to respondent for 10.11.2005 as well as Munadi summons effected for 23.03.2006 completely tally with his signatures available on the present application in hand”. The application for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 23.03.2006 and ex-parte eviction order dated 14.05.2007 was declined vide order dated 01.06.2009 which led to the filing of an appeal in which again the Appellate Authority had observed that the signatures of the tenant on the summons could easily be identified even by naked eyes. Although learned counsel for the petitioner has argued vehemently that the tenant was not served but he did not bring on record any report of the handwriting expert to the contrary and as such there is no reason for this Court to disbelieve the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below who themselves have judged and compared the signatures of the tenant on the summons in order to hold that he was duly served and was rightly proceeded against ex-parte when he did not appear. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and as such, the same is hereby dismissed though without any order as to costs. May 16, 2011. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge