The expression "good cause" in Order IX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be treated as equivalent to "sufficient cause" as in Rules 9 or 13.

Harbans Lal, J.

1. This revision is directed against the order of the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, dated February 22, 1977, where by the application of the petitioner for setting aside the order regarding ex-parte proceedings dated August 28, 1976, was dismissed.

2. A petition under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 , (hereinafter called the Act), for eviction of the petitioner from a house was filed by the respondent before the Rent Controller.

The petitioner was served on July 24, 1976, for appearance on August 28, 1976. As he did not put in appearance, ex-parte proceedings were ordered against him and the case was adjourned to October 16, 1976, for ex-parte evidence of the respondent. On the said date, an application was made by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated August 28, 1976, for proceedings against him ex-parte on the ground that he had met with an accident on June 21, 1976, resulting in the fracture of this left leg. This was contested by the respondent and the following issue was framed :

3. Whether there are sufficient grounds for setting aside the ex-parte order ?

The Rent Controller concluded that the petitioner had not been able to established sufficient grounds justifying the setting aside of the ex-parte order and the petition was dismissed.

4. According to the statement of Dr. Chander Gupt Sharma, A.W. 1, who had treated the petitioner in the General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh, for some time as well as the statement of the petitioner himself, the accident took place on June 21, 1976 and the left leg of the petitioner which had been fractured as a result, was put under plaster by the Doctor on June 22, 1976. In the first instance, he was discharged on June 23, 1976. As he got fever apparently showing that the fracture had not been set right, the petitioner again got admission in the hospital on July 5, 1976 and remained there up to July 7, 1976. On August 22, 1976, he was again examined in the hospital and was advised operation of the leg by the doctor on August 23, 1976, as bones had not been united. The petitioner did not get himself operated and went to the Medical College, Rohtak, on September 2, 1976, for treatment. According to the certificate issued by the doctor on July 28, 1976, which is also on the record, the petitioner had been advised rest for three months. The Rent Controller though admitting these facts, was of the opinion that as the petitioner was able to go out to the General Hospital in Chandigarh as well as to the Medical College, Rohtak in a vehicle, there was no sufficient ground for the petitioner not to put in appearance on the first date of hearing, that is, August 28, 1976, and not depositing the requisite deposit regarding the arrears of rent, costs and interest etc. The finding of the Rent Controller regarding the evidence of the petitioner was to the following effect :

"I accordingly feel that the absence of the respondent on 28.8.1976, after due service of notice, Exhibit R. I, on 24.7.76 on him was not without any good cause. Thus I feel that the absence of the respondent was intentional on 28..8.76 and there is no good cause within the meaning of Order 9 rule 7, Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the ex-parte proceeding against the respondent/applicant."

Towards the end of the order, the Rent Controller concluded that there was no sufficient ground for setting aside the ex-parte order.

5 From a close perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the Rent Controller was of the opinion that the petitioner was required to prove and establish "sufficient grounds" for getting the ex-parte order set aside. Clearly, the present is not a case of ex-parte order of eviction having been passed against the petitioner. On August 28, 1976, when the petitioner did not put in appearance in spite of service, ex-parte proceedings were ordered against him and the case was adjourned to October 16, 1976, for ex-parte evidence. I am told that