Gurdas Singh vs Chanan Singh

V.S. Aggarwal, J.—The present revision petition has been filed by Gurdas Singh directed against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana, dated 29.10.1980 and of the learned Appellate Rent Controller had dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 7 of the CPC (for short "the Code") for setting aside the order proceeding ex parte against him: The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority.

The relevant facts are that the petitioner is a tenant in the suit premises. Mohan Singh was the original owner-landlord. He is stated to have sold the property by a registered sale deed to respondent Chanan Singh and also authorised him to recover the arrears of rent from the tenant. On 8.4.1980, Chanan Singh filed ejectment application against the petitioner u/s 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short "the Act"). Notice of the application was served on the petitioner and a copy of the petition is stated to have been delivered to the petitioner on 20.4.1980. 9.5.1980 was the first date of hearing. There was no appearance on behalf of the petitioner. The learned Rent Controller proceeded ex parte against the petitioner because the petitioner nor his counsel had put in appearance.

On 12.5.1980 an application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code for setting aside ex parte proceedings against the petitioner was filed. It was asserted that the petitioner could not appear on 9.5.1980 because he was advised rest by the doctor. The application was opposed.

The learned Rent Controller held that the evidence produced by the petitioner cannot be believed. There was no just or sufficient ground for setting aside ex parte proceedings against the petitioner. The application accordingly was dismissed.

Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed appeal. The learned Appellate Authority held that the appeal is not maintainable. Even on merits, the learned Appellate Authority returned the finding that there was no just or sufficient ground for setting aside ex parte proceedings. The appeal was dismissed and hence, the present revision petition.

When the revision petition was listed for arguments, there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent. Therefore, this Court did not have the advantage of hearing the respondent''s counsel.

The short question that comes up for consideration is as to if there were sufficient grounds for setting aside the ex parte proceedings or not. It is not in controversy that the petitioner had been served in person and on the said date he did not appear. According to the petitioner, he was not well and, therefore, he appeared after two days and filed an application under consideration.

Though sufficient ground by itself is not defined, but it would vary with the facts and circumstances of each case. Normally it would be a fact or circumstances beyond the control of the authority.

The petitioner had examined the doctor who had examined him and advised him rest. Dr. P.N. Kaura appeared as AW2 and proved the certificate Exhibit A-1. He stated that he did not know the petitioner earlier. But that by itself is not enough. Every doctor need not know all the patient.

One ground that prevailed with the learned Appellate Authority was that the medical certificate was not appended with the application filed for setting aside ex parte proceedings. It could be a circumstance. But the facts and circumstances have all to be weighed together. The petitioner was unwell. Indeed, he was not in a position to attend the Court. He immediately on the third day appeared and submitted the application for setting aside ex parte proceedings against him. It cannot be termed that the intention was to delay the proceedings. There was no reason as to why the petitioner would riot have ordinarily come and contest the petition. The reasons given otherwise also for rejecting the application were not cogent or convincing. The expression sufficient cause occurring under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code should be construed liberally to advance the interest of justice. If there are mala fides shown or proved, the Court would be competent to reject the application. But it is not so in the present case.

The result is clear. The revision petition is accepted and the impugned judgment of the learned Appellate Authority and of the learned Rent controller are set aside. The learned Rent Controller will proceed from the stage the petitioner was to appear before the learned Rent Controller.