SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(P&H) 1548

SURYA KANT
Yadav Sood – Appellant
Versus
Des Raj Aneja – Respondent


Judgment

Surya Kant, J.

1. This revision petition is directed by the tenant whose application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte eviction order dated 16.8.2005 has been dismissed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, vide order dated 30.10.2007.

2. Though it is stated by counsel for the respondent-landlord that the possession of the demised premises has already been taken over in execution of the ex-parte ejectment order, nevertheless, counsel for the petitioner is right in contending that the revision petition still survives and requires consideration on merits.

3. The respondent-landlord had filed two eviction petitions bearing RA No.4 of 2001 and RA No.75 of 2003 against the petitioner tenant at different points of time. It appears that both the eviction petitions, in due course of time, were listed before the same ld. Presiding Officer.

4. In the Eviction Petition No.4 of 2001, the petitioner-tenant did not appear allegedly despite service and consequently, an ex-parte eviction order dated 16.8.2005 was passed. On coming to know about the same, the petitioner-tenant moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to recall the said ex-parte





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top