JUDGMENT :

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.

1. Present petition has been preferred against order dated 19.11.2019 passed by learned Rent Controller, Shimla in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 147-6 of 2019 in Rent Petition No. 74-2 of 2017, titled as Dr. Shashi Pal Sood Vs. M/s Som Nath Sawaran Lal and others, whereby application filed on behalf of petitioner under Order 9 Rule 7 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside ex parte order has been dismissed.

2. Petitioner herein is tenant and respondent is landlord and for convenience, hereinafter they shall be referred as such in this order.

3. Landlord has filed a petition on 4.3.2017 under Urban Rent Control Act for eviction of tenant. After service of tenant, reply was filed on 23.9.2017 and issues were framed on 14.12.2017, whereafter case was listed for 9.3.2018 for recording evidence of landlord. On that date, three witnesses, present in the Court, were examined on behalf of landlord and they were cross-examined on behalf of tenant by Mr.Ravi Tanta, Advocate, who appeared as vice Mr.Ajay Kochar, Advocate, engaged by tenant. Evidence on behalf of landlord was closed on that very date and case was listed for recording the evidence of tenant on 27.4.2018 with direction to take steps for the said purpose within seven days.

4. For 27.4.2018 neither steps were taken to examine the witnesses of tenant nor any witness was present in the Court. Accepting the prayer of tenant to grant time, case was fixed by the Court for recording evidence of tenant on 6.6.2018 with direction to take steps within seven days for that purpose. However again, neither steps were taken nor evidence was produced on 6.6.2018 by the tenant. This time also, accepting the request of tenant, case was adjourned for 11.7.2018 for the same purpose with same direction. But this time also neither steps were taken nor evidence was produced and again, like earlier, case was adjourned for 1.9.2018, on request of tenant for recording his evidence with direction to take steps within seven days.

5. This time also neither steps were taken for recording evidence, nor any witness was present, however applications under Order 8 Rule 1(A)(3) read with Section 151 CPC and under Order 39 Rule 7 read with Section 151 C.P.C. were filed.

6. Vide order dated 21.11.2018, application under Order 8 Rule 1(A)(3) CPC was allowed and documents proposed to be placed on record were permitted to be taken on record and application under Order 39 Rule 7 CPC was also allowed and landlord was directed to permit and allow the expert of tenant to visit and enter the premises/building in question for the purpose of inspection and for preparing inspection/technical report and case was listed for 29.12.2018.

7. On 29.12.2018, Presiding Officer was not available being transferred and, therefore, case was fixed for proper orders on 27.2.2019. On 27.2.2019 counsel for landlord had appeared, but there was no representation on behalf of tenant, therefore, notice was issued to counsel for the tenant as well as tenant for 23.3.2019. On 23.3.2019, it was reported by Dealing Assistant that notice issued to counsel had been received duly signed, but notice issued to tenant was received unserved. However, none had appeared on behalf of tenant/respondent, therefore, fresh notice was ordered to be issued to the tenant as well as its counsel for 25.4.2019. On 25.4.2019 notice issued to tenant was received back with the report that tenant was not available at the address given, whereas notice issued to counsel for the tenant was received back not properly served, therefore, tenant was ordered to be served by way of affixation for 29.5.2019. This time, it was reported that notice has been served and Mr.Digvijay Singh, Advocate had appeared for tenant as vice Mr.Ajay Kochar, Advocate and had sought time to file Power of Attorney on behalf of tenant, which, in fact, was already on record. However, case was adjourned giving last opportunity to tenant to