Paramjit
Singh Vs. Harnek Singh [2010] INSC 295 (9 April 2010)
Judgment
CIVIL
APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3280 OF 2010 [Arising out of SLP(C)
No.14957/2009] PARAMJIT SINGH .......APPELLANT Versus O R D E R Leave granted.
Heard the parties.
2. An
eviction petition was filed against the appellant on 4.2.2006. Notice was
issued to appellant, but was not personally served. The appellant-tenant
entered appearance on 9.8.2006. On 24.8.2006, the appellant-tenant filed an
application for permission to defend the eviction proceeding wherein he
specifically alleged that he obtained knowledge of the proceedings only on
9.8.2006. On the basis of the said averment, the application seeking leave to
defend the case was filed within the period of 15 days of date of knowledge
prescribed under Section 18-A(2) read with Schedule II of the East Punjab Urban
Rent Restriction Act, 1949 ('Act' for short). The Rent Controller allowed the
application seeking leave to contest the proceedings by his order dated 4.12.2007.
The respondent filed a revision petition challenging the said order. The High
Court has .....2.
- 2 -
allowed the said revision petition filed by the respondent holding that the
date of knowledge should be deemed to be 1.7.2006 and not 9.8.2006. It is also
held that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to extend the period of 15
days even if sufficient cause was shown. The said order is challenged in this
appeal by special leave.
3. It is
not in dispute that no notice was personally served upon the appellant-tenant.
The appellant- tenant in the application seeking leave specifically stated that
he got notice only on 9.8.2006. There was no specific material to controvert
the claim of the appellant-tenant that the notice was served on 9.8.2006. The Rent
Controller rightly, therefore, proceeded on the basis that the date of
knowledge was 9.8.2006. But the High Court, acting on inferences without any
evidence to support it, has proceeded on the basis that the notice should be
deemed to have been served on 1.7.2006 by way of 'munadi' (substituted
service).
4. We are
of the view that this was wholly unjustified. When the appellant-tenant had
made a categorical statement that he obtained knowledge only on 9.8.2006, in
the absence of personal service and in the absence of any satisfactory ......3.
material
to show that he had previous notice, the Court ought to have accepted the date
of knowledge as 9.8.2006.
At all
events, the High Court, exercising revisional jurisdiction, ought not to have
interfered with the finding recorded by the trial Court that the date of
knowledge was 9.8.2006.
5. We,
therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and restore
the order of the Rent Controller granting leave to contest. Having regard to
the facts and circumstances, we request the Rent Controller to dispose of the
matter expeditiously.
.........................J. ( R.V. RAVEENDRAN )
.........................J.
New Delhi;
Back
