Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : K.A.SWAMI, VENKATARAMA REDDY
M.A.Qader - Appellant
Versus
Mohd.Azmat Ali - Respondent
Decided On : 11-19-87
RENT CONTROL - EVICTION - LIMITATION FOR SETTING ASIDE EX PARTE DECREE - SERVICE OF SUMMONS - INTERPRETATION OF RULE 8 (3) OF A. P. RENT CONTROL RULES, 1961 - PERIOD OF LIMITATION STARTS FROM THE DATE OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE DECREE WHERE SUMMONS ARE NOT SERVED - COURT CAN CONDONE DELAY IN FILING RESTORATION PETITION IF SATISFIED WITH THE MATERIAL ON RECORD - SERVICE OF SUMMONS UNDER RULE 22 (4) OF THE RULES - AFFIXTURE OF SUMMONS CAN BE RESORTED TO ONLY AFTER EXHAUSTING OTHER MODES OF SERVICE.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner filed an eviction petition against the respondent under Section 10 of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. The respondent was absent when the case was called for hearing, and the Rent Controller passed an ex parte order of eviction. The petitioner filed an execution petition and took possession of the house. The respondent filed an application to set aside the ex parte order, which was allowed by the Rent Controller and the appellate authority. The petitioner filed a revision petition challenging the orders of the lower courts.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the application to set aside the ex parte order was not barred by limitation as the period of limitation starts from the date of knowledge of the decree where summons are not served. The court also held that the Rent Controller and the appellate authority were right in holding that there was no due service of summons.
Issues: 1. Whether the application to set aside the ex parte order was barred by limitation? 2. Whether there was due service of summons?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Rule 8 (3) of the A. P. Rent Control Rules, 1961 prescribes a period of limitation of 30 days for filing an application to set aside an ex parte order from the date of pronouncement of the order in open court. However, the court held that this period of limitation starts from the date of knowledge of the decree where summons are not served. 2. Rule 22 (4) of the Rent Control Rules provides four modes of service of summons. The court held that affixture of summons can be resorted to only after exhausting the other three methods of service.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed.
( 2 ) THE main ground urged in the petition was that he was not duly served with the summons and therefore the ex-parte order is void. The petitioner took a preliminarily objection contending that the application was barred by time as it was not filed within 30 days from the date of the ex-parte decree as contemplated under Rule 8 (3) of the A. P. Building (Lease Rent, and Eviction) Control Rules, 1961. He also contended that summons were duly served. The rent controller rejected the contention of the petitioner holding that the application was not time barred. He relied upon a decision of this Court in kommishetty Satyanarayana Vs. Immadashetty Venkata Subbaiah (1) 1961 (2) An. W. R. 55, Aggrieved by the order of the Rent controller that the exparte decree was liable to be set aside the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority under the Control Act. The appeal was dismissed by an order dated 22. 12. 1984. Against the said orders the petitioner filed this revision petition which came up before our learned brother justice T. Lakshminarayana reddy. The learned judge doubted the correctness of the decision in Kommisetty Satyanarayana Vs. Immadashetty Venkat Subbaiah (1 supra) and referred the matter to a Bench. This is how the matter is before us now.
( 3 ) THE main submission of sri Syed Sadatullah Hussaini, the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petition. I. A. 827 of 1983 filed to set aside the ex-parte decree is barred by limitation. He also contended that the order of the rent Controller as well as the appellate authority that there was no proper service of summons is unsustainable in law. We will take up the contentions in seriatum. Rule 8 of the A. P. Rent control Rules is as follows:- "8 (1) When an application under the Act is presented to the Controller he shall fix the date on which and the place at which the inquiry in respect of the application will be held and send notice thereof to the applicant or applicants and the respondent or respondents mentioned in the application and also send a copy of the application along with the notice to the respondent or respondents. Provided that, in the case of applications for eviction filed under Sub-section (3) of sec. 10 in respect of buildings of which the State Government, or the Central Government are tenants, he shall not be bound to give such notice unless he considers such notice necessary regard being had to the averments in the petition or any other material circumstances. (2 ). The Controller shall give to the parties a reasonable opportunity to state their case. He shall also record a brief note of the evidence of the parties and witnesses, if any, examine on either side and upon the evidence so recorded and after consideration of any documentary evidence which may be produced by the parties, pass orders on the application. (3 ). Where an order is passed exparte against a tenant or a landlord, or an order of dismissal for default is passed by the controller, the party affected may, within thirty days from the date of the pronouncement of the order in open court, apply to the Controller by whom the exparte order or the order of dismissal was passed, for an order to set it aside and if he satisfies the Controller th
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.