The main legal point established in the judgment is the liberal construction of 'sufficient cause' for non-appearance and the tenant's bona fide desire to contest the rent application on merits.

S.S.Nijjar, J.

1. This revision petition has been filed by the tenant with a prayer for setting a side the ex parte order of ejectment dated 2.11.2000 and setting aside the order dated 14.8.2001 dismissing the application for setting aside the ex-parte order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh. Briefly, the facts which are relevant for the decision of this revision petition are as under :-

2. The petitioners were inducted as tenants on the first floor, except the Kitchen of SCF No. 12, Sector 8-B, Chandigarh at a monthly rent of Rs. 700/- exclusive of water and electricity charges, payable in advance by the 7th of each calendar month. The tenancy was created by executing a rent-deed dated 6.4.1985. This agreement stipulates that there shall be increase in rent of Rs. 50 per month after one year. After six years, the increase per month shall be Rs. 100/-. According to the respondents-landlord, the petitioners were in arrears of rent. The rent was due from 1.4.1995 till 15.12.1997. Since no rent was paid, the landlords filed a petition for ejectment of the petitioner- tenant from the demised premises on the ground of non-payment of rent. Sometime during the proceedings before the Rent Controller, the petitioner- tenant was ordered to be proceeded ex parte. On application made by the petitioner-tenant ex parte proceedings were set aside on 11.1.2000. Thereafter, the petitioner-tenant was again proceeded ex parte on 17.5.2000. This order was also set aside on 31.7.2000 on payment of Rs. 500/- as costs. The case was adjourned to 1.9.2000. Thereafter, the petitioner was again proceeded ex parte. The ejectment order was passed on 2.11.2000. The petitioner filed an application before the Rent Controller on 22.12.2000 for setting aside the ex parte order. The main ground taken in the application for setting aside the ex parte order was that the petitioner-tenant was suffering from a Dislocated Slip Disc and was confined to bed in Delhi for a period of 1-1/2 months. It was stated that as consequence, no instructions could be given to the counsel who were to appear in Court of the Rent Controller, in Chandigarh. After hearing the parties, the Rent Controller has dismissed the application by order dated 14.8.2001.

3. Mr. V.K. Jain, learned Sr. Advocate has argued that the Rent Controller ahs erred in law by dismissing the application merely on the ground that it was barred by limitation. He has further submitted that whilst deciding as to whether the tenant had shown "sufficient cause" for non-appearance, the past conduct of the petitioner was wholly irrelevant. In support of his submission, the learned Sr. counsel has relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of G.P. Srivastava v. R.K. Raizada and others, 2000(1) RCR 238. Learned Sr. counsel further submitted that even on the question of limitation, the Rent Controller is wholly wrong as the provisions of the Limitation Act do not apply to the proceedings under the Rent Act.

4. In support of his submission, the learned Sr. counsel has relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Subhash Chand and others v. Ishwar Chand, AIR 1985 NOC 246 (P&H).

5. Mr. Kapoor, learned Sr. Counsel has submitted that the judgment of the Supreme Court does not lay down the proposition that past conduct is to be ignored in all the cases. Each case has to be decided on the facts and circumstances of the given case. According to the learned Sr. Counsel, the behaviour of the revision-petitioner in the present case is such that no leniency can be shown. He further submitted that the Rent Controller has applied the correct principles of law while deciding as to whether the revision-petitioner/tenant has shown "sufficient cause" for absence from Court. The Rent Controller has categorically held that no medical evidence has been produced in support of the case put forward by the revision-petitioner giving the justification for absence on the date of hearing of the ejectment