Sita Ram Shroff vs Reshmo Devi Alias Smt. Prem mohini

G.C. Mital, J.—Smt. Keshmo Devi is admittedly owner of bunglow No. 3 Ram Nagar, Race Cource Road, Amritsar. The (area in which the bunglow was situated was renamed and new numbers were provided. The new address of that bunglow is 83-Basant Avenue, Amritsar. It was on rent with Sita Ram on 3rd June 1977 the land lady obtained an exparte order of ejectment against the tenant on the ground that he had ceased to occupy the premises move than four months before the filing of the petition for ejectment On 28th July 1977 the tenant filed the application for setting aside the exparte ejectment/order on the ground that he was not served in the proceedings and specifically pleaded that two days before the date of filling the application for setting aside the exparte ejectment order, he had gone to Shib Dayal father of the landlady to tender rent when he came to know that the ejectment order had been passed against him _The application was contested by the landlady who pleaded that when the tenant could not be served personally and the premises were found locked, he was served by substituted service after obtaining orders of the Rent Controller in accordance with law It was further pleaded that no sufficient cause had been made out and the application was beyond the dimitation of 30 days. The Rent Controller framed the following issues:

Whether there is sufficient ground for setting aside the exparte decree.

Whether the application is within time?

Relief.

After the evidence was led the Rent Controller vide detailed order dated 18th February, 1983 decided both, the issues against the tenant and dismissed the application, for setting aside, the exparte ejectment order. This is tenant''s revision.

generally, exparte ejectment orders are not allowed to stand wherever, tenant, is able to show sufficient cause or it is found that grave injustice would be caused to the tenant in the present case, both the things are, lacking. Here the landlady appears to be in difficulty where as the tenant appears to be an affluent person as according to his own case he is doing business at several places in the country as also abroad. According to his own statement he visits the town of Amritsar seldom/occasionally because connection with his business he is to go to Bombay Delhi, calcutta Ludhiana Australia;, Japan, Korea Newzeland, England, etc, His witness Nikka Ram stated that the tenant, visits, the premises in dispute only 5/6 times in a year. It is not a case, where the tenant is keeping, his family in the bungalow in dispute. His case is that he keeps/stores the business goods in the premises.

Now I advert to the evidence brought on record on 10th October, 1976, an ejectment petition was filed on the ground that the tenant had ceased to occupy the bungalow in dispute for more than four months which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. On 6th November, 1976, the process server reported that the tenant had gone away to an unknown place without leaving any address and it was not possible to serve him this report was recorded after getting in touch with the neighbors on 7th December, 1976, the Court ordered for issue of fresh summons. On 1st January, 1977. the process server went to the premises and again found the same to be locked on enquiry, he was told that it was locked since long. Since the process server was told that the tenant had come to know of the ejectment proceedings, he reported that he was evading service. On 5th January, 1977, the Court on being satisfied that it is not possible to serve the tenant in an ordinary way, ordered that the tenant be served by substituted service and that order was carried into effect in letter and spirit. After the substituted service was effected, as ordered, the evidence was recorded and exparte ejectment order was passed on 3rd June, 1977. If it had been a case that the tenant or his family was staying in the house in dispute, then certainly the reports made by the process server would have been held to be erroneous and the exparte ejectment order would have been set aside. Both the reports made by the process server at two different times have been proved to be genuine from the evidence led by the tenant himself because he and his witness have clearly stated that he is doing business at so many places and the actual places which the tenant himself stated including the town of Amritsar come to ten. The tenant''s own statement is that he visited Amritsar occasionally. Once he visits the premises occasionally and his family did net live there, it would be natural that he would keep the premises locked unless in whole of the premises or in part thereof, somebody else is allowed to live in to look-after the premises. In the application for setting aside the exparte ejectment order he did not state as to who was looking after the premises. All the same in the evidence he wanted to say that he was keeping a person on the premises but when cross-examined he could neither give his name nor the salary he was being paid nor he could produce the accounts to show that he had ever kept any person as an employee in the premises in dispute because according to the tenant he was using the premises for his business purposes. Hence the improvement that he wanted to make in the evidence is also falsified with the net result that the premises were all through locked when the process server visited and the two reports being correct, there was no option with the Court except to proceed to serve the tenant by substituted service and this is what has been done in this case.

The ejectment was sought on the ground that the premises were being kept locked for over four months before filing of the abetment application which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the Act Even this ground is largely substantiated from the evidence of the tenant because his own case is that he visited Amritsar occasionally and visits other places in the country and abroad for doing his business. It is also true that his family is not living in the bungalow in dispute and is living somewhere else in India or abroad. As already pointed out, if there had been any manifest injustice to the tenant, exparte order of ejectment would have been set aside but this is at such a case. The tenant being a big businessman will not be allowed to play with poor landlady who filed ejectment proceedings in the year 1976 and obtained exparte ejectment order on 3rd June, 1977. She should not be made to suffer another round of litigation by setting aside the exparte ejectment order It is said time and again by the Courts that in revisional jurisdiction, the Courts interfere only whenever there is manifest injustice to the person who opproaches in revisional jurisdiction. In this case interference will cause manifest injustice to the Respondent and by non-interference there will be no injustice to the Petitioner because he keeps the premises mostly locked and has not shown if he is carrying on any business in the same although it is a bungalow in a residential locality. Accordingly it is not a fit case for interference in the revisional jurisdiction.

The tenant also told a lie in the statement made in Court about his plea in the application for setting aside the exparte ejectment order. His allegation that he came to know of the exparte order two days before 28th July, 1977 is false because in this application he stated that two days before he came to know about it from Sahib Dayal when he went to him to tender rent but in his statement in Court he stated that when he went to pay rent to Sahib Dayal at his residence, the rent was not accepted as Sahib Dayal was not well but when he went to the office of Sahib Dayal, he learnt that an abetment order had been passed against him exparte. He could not give the date when he visited the office of Sahib Dayal and who told him about the passing of the exparte ejectment order. Accordingly, I hold that the tenant has made false statement in Court and is not a reliable person.

For the reasons recorded above, this revision is devoid of merit and is dismissed with costs.