Allowed

Sultan and Ors. v. Murti Shri Surya Narain Ji Maharaj and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Oct 2009CR/6371/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petition allowed; impugned order setting aside appeal against ex-parte eviction order is set-aside. Appellate Authority remitted to hear both the recall application and eviction appeal. Stay on dispossession granted.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of the Appellate Authority is set-aside; matter remitted to Appellate Authority to decide appeal and recall application on merits; stay on dispossession granted pending payment of rent.

Sultan and Ors. Vs Murti Shri Surya Narain Ji… — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Revision No.6371 of 2007 (O&M)

¶3

Date of Decision : 20.10.2009

Sultan and others

.....Petitioners

versus

Murti Shri Surya Narain Ji Maharaj and others .....Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

¶9

Present : Mr.G.S.Gandhi, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Surinder Avinash Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr.P.S.Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.1-E Mr.R.P.Daaria, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 to 10.

¶10

-.-

¶11

Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶16

[1] This revision petition is preferred by the tenants whose appeal against the ex-parte eviction order has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Narnaul, vide the impugned judgment dated 3.11.2007 being not maintainable.

¶17

[2] Shorn of the details, suffice it to notice that the respondentlandlord filed an eviction petition against the petitioner-tenants on the ground of non-payment of rent. The petitioners were proceeded against exparte, resulting into an ex-parte eviction order dated 8.6.1998. They moved

¶18

C.R. No.6371 of 2007 (O&M) 2

¶19

an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to recall the ex-pate order dated 9.8.1998, but that application has been dismissed by the Rent Controller, Narnaul vide order dated 2.3.2005.

¶20

[3] Aggrieved, the petitioners approach this Court in Civil Revision No.1510 of 2005 which was dismissed on 21.11.2006 holding that the impugned order was appealable.

¶21

[4] The petitioners went in appeal, but their appeal has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Narnaul vide the impugned judgment dated 3.11.2007 after holding that the same is not maintainable.

¶22

[5] The Appellate Authority, Narnaul, has taken the aforesaid view on the assumption that the petitioners challenged only the order dated 2.3.2005 whereby the Rent Controller, Narnaul has dismissed their application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, without challenging the ex-parte eviction order dated 8.6.1998. No appeal is maintainable against an order rejecting the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC.

¶23

[6] Be that as it may, in sum and substances, the petitioners were aggrieved at the ex-parte proceedings held against them which culminated into passing an ex-parte eviction order.

¶24

[7] Counsel for the petitioner-tenants agrees that besides the order rejecting their application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, the petitioners would formally challenge the ex-parte eviction order dated 8.6.1998 also.

¶25

[8] That being so, the appeal preferred by the petitioners would undoubtedly be maintainable under the Rent Act.

¶26

C.R. No.6371 of 2007 (O&M) 3

¶27

[9] For the reasons aforestated, this revision petition is allowed to the extent that the impugned order dated 3.11.2007 passed by the Appellate Authority, Narnaul, is set-aside; the petitioners may challenge the ex-parte eviction order also before the Appellate Authority, Narnaul, who shall then hear and decide the petitioners' appeal against the eviction order on merits and while considering their appeal, shall also examine the validity of the order dated 2.3.2005 whereby the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC moved by the petitioners, has been dismissed. In other words, the Appellate Authority, Narnaul shall pass a composite order after considering the contention of both the parties in support or against the above mentioned ex-parte-eviction order, as well as dismissal of the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. The matter is accordingly remitted to the Appellate Authority, Narnaul and the parties are directed to appear before the Appellate Authority, Narnaul, on 23.11.2009.

¶28

Since the matter is quite old one, the Appellate Authority, Narnaul, is directed to decide the appeal of the petitioners as early as possible, but not later than six months.

¶29

Till the appeal is decided by the Appellate Authority, Narnaul, dispossession of the petitioners shall remain stayed subject to payment of arrears of rent, if any, and future rent by 10^th of every calendar month.

Dasti.

(SURYA KANT) JUDGE

20-10-2009

Mohinder

Sultan and Ors. v. Murti Shri Surya Narain Ji Maharaj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sultan and Ors. v. Murti Shri Surya Narain Ji Maharaj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madan Mohan Manchanda Vs Raj Dularia

Gurmail Singh and Anr. Vs Director, Rural Dev. & Panchayats Pb. and Ors.

Rajinder Kumar Vs Kaushalya Devi

K K Prabhakaran Vs M/S Hero Exports and Ors.

Jim Health Club & Anr. Vs M/S Maharaja Complex & Anr.

Ram Swarup Vs Ram Swarup and Others