Ramesh Kumar Suri vs Ram Kishan Bhandari

Ashok Bhan, J.—Respondent-landlord (hereinafter referred to as the landlord) filed an ejectment application against the tenant-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) for eviction of the latter from the entire first floor of House No. 1993 Sector 22-D, Chandigarh, on the ground of non payment of rent since 1.4.1984 and that the tenant had changed the user of the premises in dispute from residential to non residential.

Tenant was served and he engaged a counsel. He appeared in Court in the month of June 1986 and tendered the arrears of rent. Case was then fixed for filing of the written statement. No written statement was filed in spite of repeated adjournments. One such adjournments was given on payment of costs as well. Neither the tenant nor his counsel appeared. Rent controller ordered ex-parte proceedings to be taken against the tenant. Rent Controller ultimately passed an ejectment order against the tenant on 30.9.1986 and held on the basis of the statement of Ram Kishan (AW1) and Subhash Kumar Sethi (AW2) that the landlord had provided his case that the tenant had not paid rent since 1.4.1984 and that he had changed the user of the premises in dispute from residential to non-residential.

An appeal was filed by the tenant before the appellate authority on 14.1.1987. Along with the appeal, an application u/s 5 of the limitation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was filed for condoning the delay for late filing of the appeal.

Appellate authority was not satisfied with the explanation tendered by the tenant for late filing of the appeal. It was held that the tenant was negligent and he had failed to explain the delay in filing the appeal. Application for condonation of delay was dismissed. As a consequence, the appeal filed was also dismissed being barred by time. The present revision petition has been filed against the order of the appellate authority dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation.

I have gone through the judgment of the appellate authority carefully. I entirely agree with the finding recorded by the appellate authority that the tenant was negligent in pursuing the remedy and further that he failed to render any satisfactory explanation for the late filing of the appeal. Tenant was served and he had engaged a counsel. He appeared in the Court in the month of June 1986 and tendered arrears of rent. Case was fixed for filing of the written statement Neither he appeared in Court nor he contacted his lawyer. His counsel sought adjournment even on payment of costs to file the written statement but when the tenant did not turn up to pay costs and to file the written statement the counsel also did not appear and thereafter, the tenant was proceeded exparte which was followed by an exparte order of eviction. No reason was mentioned in the application for condonation of delay. During evidence, of course, the tenant stated that he could not appear as his father was ill. Since the tenant failed to mention in his application for condonation of delay regarding the illness of his father, the evidence in this regard which came on the record at a later stage cannot be looked at being an after thought. Another plea taken by the tenant was that he had met his counsel and his counsel had asked him not to meet him for 4-5 months. Neither the counsel nor his clerk was examined in support of this assertion. The tenant was residing at Chandigarh. He never bothered to either appear, in person or contact his lawyer even for filing of written statement. After the ejectment order also he did not care to file the appeal within time. His explanation that he came to know about the exparte decree on 12.1.1987 cannot, under the circumstances, be accepted. He has been highly negligent and careless in defending the proceedings. Another factor which needs highlighting is that another ejectment application regarding other portion of the same building was filed in which the tenant was again proceeded exparte and an adverse order was passed against him for his non appearance and that of his counsel. Tenant has failed to show any sufficient cause for non appearance in Court in this case and the Appellate Authority rightly dismissed the application u/s 5 of the Act for condonation of delay and the consequence order of dismissal of appeal as barred by limitation.

For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in this revision petition which is dismissed. No costs.