Ranjit Kumar vs Amar Singh

Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.—By way of this civil revision petition, orders dated 27.4.2006, 25.11.2009 and 19.12.2013 (Annexures P-2, P-3 and P-5 respectively) passed by the Rent Controller, Kurukshetra, whereby application of the petitioner-tenant for setting aside the order whereby he had been proceeded against ex-parte as also for setting aside the ex-parte decree of eviction against him was dismissed and also for setting aside order (Annexure P-6) dated 29.4.2014 passed by the Appellate Authority, Kurukshetra under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short, the Act), whereby appeal of the petitioner was also dismissed, are under challenge.

In a petition preferred by the respondent-landlord u/s 13A of the Act, eviction of the petitioner-tenant was sought from the shop in dispute on the ground of non-payment of rent as also on the plea that the premises were lying closed for a continuous period of more than 8 months and were thus, not being put to the intended use. On personal service effected on the petitioner-tenant on 23.3.2006 (Annexure P-1), his non-appearance had resulted in ex-parte order against him on the date fixed for his appearance i.e. on 27.4.2006 (Annexure P-2). After appreciating evidence led by the respondent-landlord to substantiate his claim in the petition, ex-parte eviction order was passed against the petitioner-tenant on 25.11.2009 (Annexure P-3). Application (Annexure P-4) for setting aside both ex-parte orders i.e. Annexures P-2 and P-3 was moved by the petitioner-tenant on the ground that he was never served and report of his service was forged and procured one. The application was dismissed on 19.12.2013 (Annexure P-5). The appeal preferred by the petitioner-tenant was also dismissed on 29.4.2014 (Annexure P-6).

It is claimed that report (Annexure P-1) of service of the petitioner-tenant on summons is a procured one as neither complete address of the petitioner-tenant was available on the summons nor the petitioner-tenant was identified before effecting service on him. It is claimed that though eviction petition was preferred against one ''Ranjit Kumar'' summons in fact were shown to have been received by one ''Ranjit Singh'' but the petitioner was neither ''Ranjit Singh'' nor had been signing as ''Ranjit Singh''. Claiming that conduct of the respondent-landlord is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, it is urged that validity and legality of service of summons should not have been pronounced in favour of the respondent-landlord.

Hearing has been provided to the counsel for the petitioner while going through the paper book.

Petitioner-tenant Ranjit Kumar is mentioned to be a resident of Shahbad Markanda where name of his father as also of his grandfather, to sufficiently identify him, had also been mentioned. Shahbad-Markanda is not a very big human-establishment where it is difficult to locate an individual whose father and grandfather''s name is available and it is also known that he had been running the stated shop. The market is also a small one. It is not disputed that summons issued by the court in the name of the petitioner-tenant with sufficient details of his name, father''s name, grandfather''s name, address and location were issued which were served. It is to be mentioned that service was effected Dasti by taking the Process-Server along to the petitioner-tenant.

Claim of the petitioner-tenant is that service was never effected on him and signatures of one Ranjit Singh on report of service (Ex. AW1/B) are not his signatures. It is claimed that he is also not known as ''Ranjit Singh'' but is known as ''Ranjit Kumar''. Relying on the judgments of this Court rendered in Parkash Chand Versus Norata Ram 1982 (1) RCR (Rent) 724 and Sukhbir Singh Vs. Mansa Ram and Others, it is claimed by him that the addressee was to be identified by some person so as to make the service complete. It is contended that fraud has been played upon the Rent Controller by the respondent-landlord to the prejudice of the petitioner-tenant.

There are few aspects which need to be closely appreciated and meticulously considered. During the course of evidence, to buttress his claim in the application for setting aside ex-parte proceedings as also eviction order against him, petitioner-tenant Ranjit Kumar had himself entered the witness box as AW1. Though therein he sweepingly testified about the averments in the application but could not withstand the test of cross-examination. Learned Rent Controller in his order of 19.12.2013 has clearly noticed that the petitioner-tenant in his application for setting aside ex-parte proceedings appended his signatures on last page as mere ''Ranjit'' without even mentioning ''Kumar'' or ''Singh'' after his name as ''Ranjit''. Even in the affidavit appended with the said application, he has mentioned his name simply as ''Ranjit''. When entering the witness box at the time of making of his statement, he tendered his affidavit mentioning his name with the spellings as ''Ranjeet''.

Thus, he had been trying to mislead the court about his real identity at times by mentioning himself as ''Ranjit Singh'' whereas at some other time as ''Ranjit Kumar'' and yet at other time as ''Ranjeet'' with the spellings of his name as ''Ranjeet''. On perusal of document Ex. AW2/C i.e. rear side of summons which were served upon him, learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that spelling of his name is mentioned as ''Ranjit'' and he had also signed as ''Ranjit'' on the power of attorney given in favour of his counsel. A finding of fact has unhesitatingly been recorded by the Rent Controller against the petitioner-tenant to the following effect:

After careful perusal of document Ex. AW1/C i.e. rear side of summon, which was served upon him, the spelling of his name is mentioned as Ranjit and similar spelling has been mentioned by Ranjit when he had appended his signatures on the power of attorney when he engaged Shri Arvind Aggarwal as his counsel. Meaning thereby, the person who received the summons to appear in court on 27.4.2006 is the same who had made his signatures on the power of attorney.

The Rent Controller also relied on another judgment of 5.12.2003 (Ex. R1) which revealed that the petitioner-tenant had filed a civil suit on behalf of one minor Rajinder Singh against the present respondent Amar Singh, wherein a clear finding had been given in the judgment that he is tenant of the defendant and litigation regarding his eviction was also pending before the Rent Controller. Findings of learned Rent Controller in this regard are as under:

Moreover, from the perusal of document Ex. R1 i.e. judgment dated 5.12.2003, it is observed that the said applicant Ranjit Singh also filed a civil suit on behalf of minor Rajinder Singh against the present respondent Amar Singh and categorically admitted in para 19 of the said judgment that he is tenant of defendant and litigation is pending in Court regarding his eviction meaning thereby the said Ranjit Singh and Ranjit Kumar both are the same persons and the service of summon was duly effected upon him despite having knowledge of the rent petition pending against him but he did not show the courage to appear in court and was proceeded against ex-parte.

Upholding the ex-parte proceedings against the petitioner-tenant ordered on 27.4.2006 as also ex-parte judgment rendered against him on 25.11.2009, it was pointedly noticed by the Rent Controller that the petitioner-tenant also did not show the courage to file appeal against the judgment of 25.11.2009 rendered in civil suit which suit had been preferred by him against the respondent-landlord.

The Appellate Authority endorsing the findings of the Rent Controller had come to a firm finding independently and separately on comparison of signatures of recipient of summons Ex. AW1/B vide report Ex. AW1/C with the admitted signatures of the petitioner-tenant on the file that both signatures in fact did match with each other. In addition to other aspects, findings of the Appellate Authority in this regard are as under:

Further, when signature on the report Ex. AW1/C on the summons Ex. AW1/B is compared with appellant''s admitted signatures available on file with the help of naked eyes, it can very well be observed that both the signatures match with each other. In case, signature on the report Ex. AW1/C was not affixed by appellant/tenant himself then he should have got the same compared with his admitted signatures. However, nothing of the sort was done. Nothing has been explained as to what had prevented him from getting signatures compared.

It is also to be noticed that service was effected Dasti and the landlord was accompanying the Process-Server at the time of service of summons.

Counsel for the petitioner-tenant has not been able to show any factual or legal error in the impugned orders (Annexures P-2, P-3 and P-5) passed by the Rent Controller as also impugned order (Annexure P-6) of the Appellate Authority.

Keeping in view the totality of above facts and circumstances, no interference is called for as the impugned orders (Annexures P-2, P-3 and P-5) passed by the Rent Controller as also impugned order (Annexure P-6) of the Appellate Authority have no infirmity either on facts or in law. Sequelly, the petition being without any merit is dismissed. The impugned orders are affirmed.