Tenant petitioner challenged under Article 227 the Rent Controller's order restoring an eviction petition dismissed in default. The Court found no material irregularity or illegality and dismissed the petition.
Petitioner's writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution against the restoration of the rent petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Manoj Kumar #1# 2013.11.08 10:20I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
C.R. No.5805 of 2013 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No.5805 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.09.2013
Baljit Singh Shergill
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Satwant Singh and Anr.
....Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present: Mr. D.K. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
JASWANT SINGH, J
By filing the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, petitioner-tenant has prayed for setting aside the order dated 29.1.2013 whereby the rent petition, which was dismissed for non-appearance, has been restored as also the subsequent orders passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh.
A perusal of paper book reveals that a rent petition titled as Satwant Singh Vs. Baljit Singh Shergill and another was filed under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for eviction of the petitioner as well as proforma respondent from the First Floor of SCO No.53-54-55, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh ( for short “the demised premises”) before the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh.
It transpires that the petition was dismissed in default on 9.12.2011 on account of non-filing of proclamation fee as well as due to non-appearance of the petitioner (respondent No.1 herein) or his counsel. Thus, an application for restoration was filed by pleading that
C.R. No.5805 of 2013 (O&M) #2#
different cases had been filed by the land owners and against proforma respondent No.2 herein also there is another case pending.
It was pleaded in the application for restoration that the
case diary of the Advocate was misplaced and as such, he could not appear in the Court and he came to know about the dismissal for nonprosecution a week ago and after making inquiry from the concerned Ahlmad, the application for restoration was filed, which was supported by an affidavit of Sh. Ashok Sehgal, Advocate. After taking into consideration the sufficient cause shown by the landowner and his counsel, the order dated 9.12.2011 was recalled and the rent petition was restored to its original number subject to payment of costs of Rs.1000/- while passing the impugned order dated 29.1.2013 and subsequent orders have been passed accordingly regarding the payment of costs and other proceedings.
The tenant has invoked the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution but he has failed to show any material irregularity or illegality committed by the learned Rent Controller while restoring the rent petition in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case. Thus, no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh.
Dismissed.
September 25, 2013 manoj
( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution in restoring a rent petition dismissed in default due to non-appearance.
Whether any material irregularity or illegality was committed by the Rent Controller while restoring the rent petition.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Baljit Singh Shergill
Satwant Singh and Anr.
JASWANT SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
