Puran Singh Vs. V.S. Aggarwal and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
the case focused on the effect, for not challenging the order of dismissal but only challenging the order of eviction -in the instant case, the petitioner had not challenged the order of dismissal of application filed under order 9 rule 13 of the civil procedure code, 1908 but challenged the order of eviction - in view of the fact that the application for setting aside the ex parte order was disposed off, the order had become final - thereforee, it was ruled that there was no merit in the contention raised by the petitioner - - , 7.11.72. the petitioner failed to appear before the court on 7.11.72 and thereforee, the additional rent controller proceeded ex-parte against him and listed the petition for 15th november, 1972 for ex-parte evidence.sunanda bhandare, j.(1) this petition under article 227 of the constitution of india is filed against the order of additional rent controller dated 15th november, 1972 whereby the eviction petition filed by the original respon- dents 2 to 6 was allowed. during the pendency of this petition, shri rajinder kumar and shri jitender kumar, respondents 4 and 5 died. their legal representative have been brought on record. (2) the main contention of the petitioner in the petition is that the impugned order was passed ex-parte by the addl. rent controller, though fresh notice was required to be given to the petitioner. it is submitted that notice was served on the petitioner for appearance on 6.11.72 which was declared a holiday. the case was however listed before the court on the next working dav ie., on 7th november 1972 and on that day, the additional rent controller passed an order proceeding ex-parte against fhe petitioner and listed the case for further proceedings on 15th november, 1972 on which date the impugned order was passed. learned counsel for the respondents) submitted that wider rule 4 of chapter i-k of the rules and orders of the punjab high court, vol i on the occurrence of an unanticipated holiday or in the event of the presiding officer of a court being absent owing to sudden illness or other unexpected cause all cases fixed for the day in question shall be deemed to have been automatically adjourned to the next working day when the presiding officer is preseat and it is the duty of the parties and their counsel to attend court on that date. thereforee, the case was rightly listed on the next working day, i.e., 7.11.72. the petitioner failed to appear before the court on 7.11.72 and thereforee, the additional rent controller proceeded ex-parte against him and listed the petition for 15th november, 1972 for ex-parte evidence. (3) i find that the petitioner did not take any steps to get the order of the court dated 7.11,72 set aside or varied and not only he did not appear before the court on 7.11.72, but also on 15.11.72. it is only after notice in the execution proceedings was served on the petitioner that he engaged an advocate and thereafter filed an application under order 9, rule 13 of the code of civil procedure. the rent controller declined to grant stay. thereforee, the petitioner filed an appeal before the rent controller tribunal under section 38 of the delhi rent control act which was dismissed on the ground of maintainability. (4) the petitioner obtained an order of stay of eviction from this court on 18.6.73. the records of the trial court have been received by this court. on perusal of the record, i find that the application filed by the petitioner under order 9 rule 13 of the code of civil procedure was dismissed by the addl. rent controller vide order dated 17th october, 1973. the petitioner has not challenged the order of the rent controller dismissing the application under order 9 rule 13 civil procedure code dated 17th october 1973 in this petition, but has only challenged the impugned order of eviction. since the application for setting aside the order of proceeding ex-parte against the petitioner stands disposed of and that order has become final, i find no merit in the contention raised by the petitioner. (5) the second ground on which the impugned order has been challenged is that' the village ladoo sarai is an rural area and has 'not been urbanised under section 507 of the delhi municipal corporation act, 1957 nor the provisions of the delhi rent control act, 1958 have been extended to that area. this contention is without any merit because the village in which the demised premises are situated was urbanised vide notification no. rlz/526 dated 23rd may 1963. (6) learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the petitioner has not paid any rent to the respondents during the pendency of this petition and thereforee, he is not entitled to any discretionary relief. i find that on none of the grounds raised by the petitioner, the petitioner can claim any relief under article 227 of the constitution of india. (7) accordingly, petition stands dismissed.