Inderjit Pal vs Shanker

S.S. Kang, J.—Inderjit Pal has filed this revision u/s 15 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called ''the Act'') against the order dated December 11, 1984, of the learned Rent Controller. Ambala whereby he had allowed an application filed by Shankar, Respondent, to set aside an ex-parte ejectment order dated November 18, 1981 passed against Shankar.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Inderjit Pal Petitioner has filed a petition u/s 13 of the Act for the ejectment of Shankar, Respondent, from the premises, in dispute. The process server submitted a report that Shankar had been personally served. However Shankar did not appear in court. Ex-parte proceedings were taken and orders of his eviction were passed on November 18, 1981. ex-parte. In execution of these orders Shankar was dispossessed on May 10, 1982. Shankar filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte orders of ejectment on June 15, 1982. This application was resisted by the present Petitioner. He pleaded that Shankar has been personally served and did not attend the court intentionally. Shankar came to know about ex-parte orders at least on the day when he was ejected on May, 10 1982. Under Article 123 of the Limitation Act, an application for setting aside the ex-parte order could be made within 30 days of the impugned order or knowledge thereof whichever was latter.

The learned Rent Controller after examining the pleadings and the evidence on the file came to the conclusion that there was no sufficient evidence to hold that Shankar had been personally served. The process-server did not get his endorsement on the summons attested from any witness. He did not know(sic) Shankar personally and the latter had been identified by some neighbour. That neighbour had not been produced. It could not be said with certainty that the man who had been allegedly served was in fact Shankar. Shankar had denied his signatures on the summons. The application was held to be within time. The plea of limitation was rejected and it was hold that it cannot be said that the application was time barred.

It has been vigorously argued by Mr. S.K. Goyal the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, that the process-server had established that Shapkar, the tenant, had been badly(sic served. The mere absence of the attestation of the report regarding service by any witness does not render the service invalid. He also contended that the application for setting aside the ex parte orders had been filed beyond 30 days of the knowledge and as such it was liable to be dismissed as time barred. It is the admitted case that the process server did not know Shankar, Respondent. The process server has stated that Shankar was identified by a neighbour. The process server did not get the re3port of service attested by that neighbour that neighbour(sic) has not been produced. The process server has not identified Shankar in Court. So, at bes the evidence on the file establishes that the process server took the summons to the demised premises. On the identification of a neighbour he served summons on one person who accepted the same and signed a copy thereof in token of his service; Snanker appeared in the witness box and categorically denied that the signatures on the summons are not his. No effort was made before the learned Rent Controller to establish that the signatures on the summons were of Shankar neither any witness was produced to establish this fact nor any expert evidence was led to establish this fact that the disputed signatures were of Shankar. An application has been filed in this Court for getting the signatures of the Respondent compared with signatures on the summons. It has not however, been cogently explained as to why such an application has not been filed before the Rent Controller. By separate order, I had rejected that application. In the absence of any acceptable evidence to the contrary the learned Rent Controller was justified in coming to the conclusion that a person on whom summons were served by the process server was not Shankar. This ending(sic) could not be held to be improper what to say to perverse.

It is now, well settled that Rent Controller is not a Court. He is an officer persona designata, specially authorised to adjudicate upon disputes relating to urban property concerning ejectment and determination of fair rent of urban properties. The provisions of Limitation Act are not applicable to the proceedings before the Rent Controller exercising jurisdiction under the act. The provision the Act are substantially the same as the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called ''the Punjab Act)

6 It has been held in a catena of decisions that the provisions of Limitation Act are not applicable to the proceedings under the Punjab Act. In this connection reference may be made to a decision in Rajinder Kumar v. Dr. Rajwant Rai Sood (1983) 85 P.L.R. 177 and Jai Parkash and Ors. v. Jeen Correa 1981 (1) R.L.R. 25.

It is clear from the above decisions that provisions of the Limitation Act are not applicable to the applications for setting aside ex Parte orders. No limitation has been prescribed by the Act for this purpose. Consequently, it cannot be argued with any plausibility that the application filed by Shankar was barred by limitation.

In fairness to Mr Goyal, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent, it may be mentioned that he drew my attention to a decision of J.V. Gupta, J. in M/s Saran Singh Waryam Singh v. Shri Jit Singh (1984) 86 P.L.R. 532. It has been observed in that case that Article 123 of the Limitation Act provides a period of 30 days from the date of decree or where the summons of notice was not duly served when the applicant had knowledge. The learned Rent Controller was wrong to hold that the application was barred by limitation When he had given a finding that the summons or notice had not been duly served on the applicant of that case. In that case, no plea was raised that Article 123 of the Limitation Act or for that matter the provisions of the Limitation Act were not applicable to the proceedings under the Punjab Act or the Haryana Act So, the decision in Messrs Saran Singh Waryam Singh''s case(supra) is of no help to the Petitioners.

As a result the revision petition is dismissed.