An order refusing to set aside an ex-parte ejectment order passed under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act is not appealable before the appellate authority. Only a revision lies to the High Court under Section 15(5) of the Act.

Pritam Singh Pattar, J.

1. This is a revision petition filed by The tenant BIkramjit Singh Paul against the order dated 22-8-1975 of the Rent Controller, Ludhiana whereby he dismissed his application made under Order 9 Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code, for setting aside the ex-parte order for ejectment passed against him on 22-12-1972 from the shop in dispute.

2. Briefly stated the facts of this case are that the petitioner Bikramjit Singh Pual is a tenant under Jaswant Singh respondent of shop No. 44 in Building No. B XVII-168 situated in Bharat Nagar Chowk, Ludhiana. The landlord Jaswant Singh made an application under section 13 of he East Punjab Rent Restriction Act against the tenant Bikramjit Singh for ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rent. Notice of his application was issued to the tenant but he refused to accept service. The Court then ordered that he should be served by proclamation made at the spot for 23-11-1972. He was duly served by proclamation but in spite of this he did not appear on 23-11-1972 in Court and he was proceeded against ex-parte. The case was adjourned for 7-12-1972 for recording ex-parte evidence of the landlord. However Bikramjit Singh tenant appeared in the Court of the Rent Controller on 7-12-1972 and made an application to set aside the order to proceed ex-parte against him. The case was adjourned to 14-12-1972 and on that day the counsel for the landlord stated that he had no objection if the order was set aside on payment of costs. The Rent Controller accepted the application to set aside the order for ex-parte proceedings against the tenant on payment of Rs. 15/- as costs and he adjourned the case to 19-12-1972 for payment of costs and to file written statement. On the latter date i. e. 19-12-1972, neither any written statement was filed nor any costs were paid. The Controller called his case also after lunch when the Counsel for the tenant appeared and he stated that he had no instructions from his client and then he left the room. Thereafter the Rent Controller passed order to proceed ex-parte against him and adjourned the case to 22.12.1972 for recording the ex-parte evidence and after recording the evidence of the landlord on that day passed the order for ejectment against him because he had not paid rent from 1.8.1971 to 27-8-1972, at the rate of Rs. 135/- per mensem. The application under Order 9 Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the ex-parte eviction order was made on 16-1-1973, wherein it was mentioned that he was taken ill all of a sudden on 18-12-1972 and had a severe nervous break down and heart attack and he became semiunconscious and his condition became critical till 22-12-1972. During this period he remained under the treatment of a heart specialist, who recommended him complete rest till 16-1-1973 and was not in a posit to instruct or tell his family members to give necessary instructions to his counsel about his illness. It was prayed that his absence on 19-12-1972 was not deliberate or intentional but it was due to his sudden illness and therefore, the ex-parte order of eviction may be set aside. This application was contested by the landlord. He denied that the tenant Bikramjit Singh fell as alleged in the application. According to him his absence on 19.12.1972 was intentional and deliberate. The application was alleged to be not within limitation. On these pleading of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Rent Controller :-

(1) Whether there are sufficient grounds for setting aside the ex-parte ejectment order ?

(2) Whether the application is barred by limitation ?

After discussing the evidence produced by the parties, the learned Rent Controller decided issue Nos. 1 and 2 against the tenant Bikramjit Singh petitioner. As a result his application to set aside the order of eviction was dismissed with costs, which were assessed at Rs. 100/-. Feeling aggrieved, Bikramjit Singh tenant filed this revision petition in this court.

3. At the