ORDER
1. The present revision petition has been filed by the tenant for setting aside the order dt. 1-4-1989 of the learned Rent Controller ejecting her application for setting aside the ex parte ejectment order dt. 21st of Jan. 1987.
2. Briefly the facts are that the respondent is the owner and landlady of the premises in dispute and the petitioner is keeping part of the premises as tenant. An ex parte ejectment order was passed against the tenant on 21st of Jan. 1987. An application to set aside the ex parte ejectment order was filed by the petitioner on 13-4-1987 and on 1-4-1989 the said application was dismissed. The learned Rent Controller found that the petitioner was served with ejectment application and she had the knowledge of the pending ejectment proceedings and no sufficient grounds have been made out for setting aside the ex parte ejement order dt. 21-1-1987. Against the said order the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order is bad in asmuch as the petitioner was not served and the affidavit of the Process Server on the summon is not in accordance with the law. He has further submitted that no sufficient time was given for contesting the petition as the petitioner was alleged to have been served on 15th of Nov. 1986, whereas the petitioner was proceeded ex parte on 18th Nov. 1986 and ejectment order was passed on 21-1-1987. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the following judgments:–
(i) Om Parkash v. Surinder Kumar, AIR 1990 Punj & Har 97;
(ii) Nasib Singh v. Jagdish Chand, (1980) 82 Pun LR 729;
(iii) Ramesh Kumar v. Rameshwar Dass,
(1987) 92 Pun LR 502;
(iv) Shri Dev Raj v. Harcharan Singh,
(1988) 93 Pun LR 39;
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find no merits in the revision petition. The present proceedings are clearly
an abuse of the process of the Court. Ejectment application was filed as far back as on 26th July, 1986. The petitioner was served on 15th of Nov. 1986 for 18th Nov. 1986. He having not appeared on 18th Nov. 1986, the learned Rent Controller proceeded ex parte against the petitioner and after recording ex parte evidence, order of ejectment was passed on 21st of Jan. 1987. Execution application was filed by the landlady on 10th of Mar. 1987. The petitioner filed an application on 13th of Apr. 1987 for setting aside the ex parte ejectment order, which was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller on 1st of Apr. 1989. Against this order, no appeal was maintainable, but the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate Authority on 5-4-1989. The appeal was filed without the certified copy of the order and at the time, when the appeal was admitted on 8-4-1989, the following order was passed by the learned appellate Authority:- –
“Present: Counsel for the appellant. Heard Appeal is admitted subject to all just exceptions. Notice on payment of process to the respondent for 16-5-89. Lower Court record be also summoned for the date fixed.”
“With the memo of appeal only a true copy of the order appealed against has been filed. Counsel for the appellant is directed to file attested copy of the order appealed against on the next date of hearing.”
“Notice of the application for interim relief be also given to the respondent on payment of process. In the meanwhile till further orders dispossession of the appellant is stayed subject to the condition that he shall deposit in the lower Court, within two weeks from today, the rent in arrears till the end of this month and continuing depositing the future rent during the pendency of the appeal by the 10th of every month.”
5. The petitioner never complied with the directions of the appellate Authority, whereby the petitioner’s dispossession was stayed subject to the payment of rent during the pendency of the appeal. The said appeal was dismissed on 10th of Jan. 1990 in absence of the petitioner and her counsel. The appeal was held to be time-barred as the petitioner
had not filed a certified copy of the order.
6. After the dismissal of the appeal, the landlady then per sued her execution application and was successful in getting warrant of possession, which was issued to her on 11th of Apr. 1990. The petitioner in order to save her ejectment filed a civil suit for declaration to the effect that the ex parte ejectment order was illegal and was obtained by fraud. Simultaneously, she also filed an application under O.XXI R. 29 of the Civil P.C. for staying the execution proceedings on the ground that since the matter in suit is pending, the ejectment order should be stayed. Initially the executing Court granted ad interim stay order, but the same was vacated on 24th of Jan. 1991, when her application under O. XXI R. 29 of the Civil P.C. was dismissed. Only thereafter, the present revision petition was filed on 12-2-1991 challenging the order dt. 1st of Apr. 1989.
7. The re’sume’ of the facts clearly points out that the petitioner is interested only in delaying the proceedings. No doubt, no limitation is prescribed in filing the revision petition under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, as applicable to the Union Territory, Chandigarh, but still is must be filed within a reasonable time. Ejectment order was passed on 1-4-1989, whereas the present revision petition has been filed on 12th of Feb. 1991. It cannot be said that the present revision petition was filed within a reasonable time. At the time of the admission of the appeal, the petitioner was directed to deposit the arrears of rent, but no arrears of rent were deposited by the petitioner, which was @ Rs. 500/- per month. The mala fide of the petitioner is also apparent from the fact that two ejectment petitions were filed by the landlady on 12th of July, 1989 and 7th of Sept. 1989 respectively and in both the petitions the order of ejectment was passed against the petitioner as she was found to be in arrears of rent @Rs. 500/- per month. Both the orders still remain unexecuted.
8. As I have noticed that the present proceedings initiated by the petitioner are not only mala fide, but clearly an abuse of the process of the Court, I need not go into the
matter as to whether the service which was effected on the petitioner, was in accordance with the law or not. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed with costs. Costs are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. The learned Rent Controller is directed to issue warrants of possession to the landlady forthwith and if need be, police help be also provided to the landlady for executing the warrants of possession.
9. Petition dismissed.