C.R. No.405 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.405 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.7.2010 Veena @ Saroj ……Petitioner VERSUS K.C. Sharma & another ……Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- Present: Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Advocate for the applicant-respondent No.1. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. Present revision petition is filed under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 challenging two orders i.e. order of eviction dated 12.5.2008 as well as order dated 14.10.2009, passed by learned Rent Controller, Rohtak, C.R. No.405 of 2010 (O&M) -2- thereby dismissing the application moved by the revisionist under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that respondent No.1, landlord of the property, filed an eviction suit against the revisionist (defendant No.2/wife) and respondent No.2 (defendant No.1/husband) on the ground of non-payment of rent, house tax charges, water charges and electric charges w.e.f. 1.10.2000. 3. Respondent No.2 (defendant No.1) despite of service neither appeared nor filed any written statement. However present revisionist (defendant No.2/wife) filed the written statement contending therein that there is no relationship of landlord-tenant between the plaintiff and the revisionist (defendant No.2), hence, suit for eviction under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 is not maintainable against the defendant No.2/present revisionist. 4. During the hearing before the learned Rent Controller, initially revisionist-wife (defendant No.2) had appeared, however, thereafter revisionist did not appear. She was directed to be proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 20.3.2006. Learned Rent Controller allowed the petition for eviction of the landlord vide order dated 12.5.2008 on the ground of non-payment of rent since 1.10.2000 and directed the revisionist (defendant No.2) and respondent No.2 (defendant No.1) to handover vacant physical possession of the property to the landlord within two months from the C.R. No.405 of 2010 (O&M) -3- date of pronouncement of the judgment. 5. Thereafter, an application under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 C.P.C. was moved by the revisionist-wife (defendant No.2) contending therein that relationship of landlord and tenant existed only between respondent No.1 (plaintiff) and respondent No.2-husband (defendant No.1) and there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the revisionist (defendant No.2) and the respondent No.1-landlord (plaintiff). It is further submitted that she came to know about the decree only on 12.3.2009 when Court official came to the demised premises for taking possession. 6. Learned Rent Controller vide order dated 14.10.2009 dismissed the application moved by the present revisionist (defendant No.2/wife) under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 C.P.C. by observing that service of notice on the present revisionist (defendant No.2) is not denied. It is further observed that she had appeared in the proceedings and thereafter without any sufficient cause remained absent. 7. Feeling aggrieved from the order dated 14.10.2009 an appeal was preferred before the Appellate Authority by the revisionist (defendant No.2/wife) which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 18.12.2009 having observed that an appeal under the Rent Act is not maintainable against the rejection of the application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. C.R. No.405 of 2010 (O&M) -4- 8. After the dismissal of the appeal vide order dated 18.12.2009 revisionist has invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 challenging both the orders i.e. eviction order dated 12.5.2008 and order dated 14.10.2009, thereby rejecting the application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. 9. Learned Counsel for the revisionist (defendant No.2/wife) vehemently argued that vide order dated 21.9.1999, in a suit for dissolution of marriage, a direction was issued to the tenant – respondent No.2 – husband under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act to pay the rent, hence, husband was duty bound to pay rent and for his fault wife-revisionist should not be made to suffer. It is further argued by learned Counsel for the revisionist that landlord has also filed another civil suit for recovery of the rent which was decreed against the husband on 2.2.2009, hence, in view of the decree passed by Civil Court for recovery on 2.2.2009, eviction order passed by the learned Rent Controller vide order dated 12.5.2008 can not be sustained in the eyes of law on the ground of non-payment of rent. 10. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-landlord vehemently argued that while deciding the application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. revisionist has to prove sufficient reasons for non appearance. He further contented that arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the revisionist on both the scores are beyond the pleadings and no material is available on record in support of the C.R. No.405 of 2010 (O&M) -5- arguments of learned Counsel for the revisionist-petitioner. 11. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the record it seems that revisionist (defendant No.2/wife) after service of summon initially appeared before the learned Rent Controller and thereafter did not appear. Consequently, suit was directed to be proceeded ex-parte against the revisionist (defendant No.2/wife) vide order dated 20.3.2006. 12. In view of undisputed fact, it can not be said that revisionist was not having any knowledge about the pendency of the eviction case before the learned Rent Controller, Rohtak. To set aside the ex-parte decree/judgment applicant has to prove sufficient ground for non-appearance justifying recalling of the ex-parte judgment. Having perused the record, this Court finds that no sufficient reason is assigned for recalling the ex-parte judgment dated 12.5.2008. Learned Rent Controller rightly rejected the application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. 13. In view of the admitted fact that rent was not paid to the landlord since 1.10.2000, eviction order dated 12.5.2008 is perfectly legal and correct. 14. Inter se dispute between the husband and wife or any direction by the competent Court to the husband to pay rent of the tenanted portion to the landlord does not mean that landlord can not seek eviction of the tenant on the ground of arrears of rent/non- payment of rent. Inter se dispute between the husband and wife C.R. No.405 of 2010 (O&M) -6- does not debar the landlord to seek appropriate remedy available under the law for eviction of the tenant. 15. In the opinion of this Court, filing of any subsequent suit for recovery of the amount of rent against the husband is no ground to recall the ex-parte judgment and decree which was validly passed. Moreover, neither pleading was taken nor any material was placed in support of the argument advanced by learned Counsel for the revisionist. 16. Revision petition is devoid of merit, hence, is dismissed. ( ALOK SINGH ) 16.7.2010 JUDGE ashish