Smt. Sushila Mittal vs Sh. Shankar Lal and Another

R.L. Anand, J.—None has given the appearance on behalf of respondent. Proceeded ex parte.

This is a Civil Revision and has been directed against the order dated 16.11.1982 passed by the Appellate Authority, Faridabad, which dismissed the appeal of Smt. Sushila Mittal and affirmed the order dated 5.5.1982 passed by the Court of Rent Controller, Faridabad.

Some facts can be noticed in the following manner. Smt. Sushila Mittal filed an ejectment petition u/s 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 against the respondents-tenants. The rent proceedings were contested; issues were framed and the case of the landlady was fixed on 17.3.1982 for recording the evidence in rebuial. On that day, the landlady could not bring the evidence in rebuttal and costs amounting to Rs. 70/- were imposed and the case was adjourned to 21.4.1982. On this date also, neither the previous cost was paid nor the evidence was produced by the landlady in rebuttal and the case was adjourned to 5.5.1982 by imposing additional costs of Rs. 100/-. It was also stated by the Rent Controller that if the costs are not paid or the evidence is not brought, the landlady will be dealt with u/s 35-B of the Code of Civil Procedure. The case was then dismissed on 5.5.1982 u/s 35-B of the CPC after relying upon the judgment reported as (1981)83 P.L.R. 715, L.D. Arora v. Sushila Devi and Ors., and (1981)83 P.L.R. 555 Shri Anand Parkash v. Bhushan Rai.

Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller dated 5.5.1982 the landlady filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, Faridabad, which endorsed the order of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal vide order dated 16.11.1982.

Aggrieved by the order passed by the Appellate Authority the present revision has been filed.

I am disposing of this revision petition with the assistance rendered by the counsel for the petitioner and I am of the considered opinion that both the impugned orders are liable to be set-aside. The provisions contained in Section 35-B C.P.C. strictly speaking are not applicable to the provisions of Rent Restriction Act. It is a settled principle of law that provisions of 35-B C.P.C. are very stringent and the application of these provisions should be restricted to the minimum so that the rights of the parties may be decided and concluded according to the judicial prepositions.

There is another illegality in the orders passed by the Courts below. The evidence of the landlady had already been concluded in the affirmative. She was only supposed to lead the evidence in rebuttal and in these circumstances, her right to lead rebuttal evidences at the most could be closed and the entire rent petition could not be dismissed.

In this view of the matter both the impugned orders are hereby set aside and the directions are given to the Rent Controller to restore the rent petition to its original number and allow the petitioner-landlady to lead her evidence in rebuttal and dispose of the matter according to law after giving notice to the tenant.

The counsel for the petitioner is directed through his counsel to appear before the court of Rent Controller, Faridabad on 20.9.1999. Further directions are also given to the Rent Controller to decide this rent petition within six months from the date of the appearance of the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the District Judge, Faridabad for intimation and compliance.