A person who is a necessary and proper party to eviction proceedings has locus standi to file applications to set aside ex parte proceedings and to implead themselves as a party-respondent.

V.K.Bali, J.

1. Pritam Singh, whose where-abouts were unknown, was proceeded against ex-parte after making some attempts to serve him at his residential address, House No. 1678, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh. The petition moved by the respondent-landlord, Vinod Kumar Lamba was with a view to seek eviction of the tenant, Pritam Singh from the premises in which he was inducted as tenant through a lease deed dated November 20, 1986 in S.C.F. 10, Sector 22-D Chandigarh. The wife of the tenant, Pritam Singh filed two applications, one for setting aside ex-parte proceedings against her husband Pritam Singh and the other from impleading her as a party-respondent in the petition for eviction. The learned Rent Controller after getting reply of both the applications from the respondent-landlord dismissed the same primarily on the ground that Gurdeep Kaur, wife of tenant had no locus standi to move the applications, referred to above as she had no authority on the basis of which she could file applications on behalf of the tenant. It was held that she was not authorised by the respondent to file any application on his behalf and she was also not attorney of the respondent. Having found so, the grounds on which Gurdeep Kaur had prayed for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings, were not gone into at all. On the parity of same reasoning, application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also dismissed.

2. Petitioner, Gurdeep Kaur takes exception to the order vide which ex-parte proceedings were ordered against her husband, Pritam Singh as also the order declining to implead her as a party and setting aside the aforesaid order of ex-parte proceedings vide this civil revision No. 1172 of 1992.

3. This revision petition came up for motion hearing on April 9, 1992 and was adjourned to April 21, 1992. However, it appears that the matter was taken up on April 10, 1992 before the date fixed by this Court and notice of motion was issued for May 7, 1992. Passing of the final order was also stayed till further orders

4. Even though the orders rejecting two applications, referred to above, were passed on April 1, 1992 and the High Court stayed further proceedings on April 10, 1992, the respondent-landlord meanwhile concluded his evidence by April 9, 1992 by examining himself as his own witness and obtained an order of eviction on April 10, 1992, the same day when the High Court stayed further proceedings in the main case. The case of the petitioner is that by the time the order passed by the High Court could be brought to the notice of the learned Rent controller, the eviction order had been passed. Aggrieved, the petitioner carried an appeal against the ex-parte eviction order before the Appellate Authority but the same was dismissed on April 28, 1992. Civil Revision No. 1325 of 1992 has been filed in this court against the above order of eviction.

5. Both the revisions were ordered to be decided together by the motion bench vide orders stated May 12, 1992. Thus, this order will dispose of both the Civil Revision Nos. 1172 of 1992 and 1325 of 1992.

6. Before the matter is proceeded any further, it will be useful to see as to in what exact circumstances tenant Pritam Singh was proceeded against ex-parte. The petition for eviction after institution came up for hearing before the Rent Controller on May 13, 1991 when the following order was passed:-

"Report of office perused. Petition be registered and indexed. Notice to respondent be issued for 30.7.1991 on filing of P.P. etc. within 5 days. As has been mentioned above, an attempt was made to serve the tenant at his residential address and not at the address where he was carrying on the business i.e. S.C.F. 10, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh, which also is the tenanted premises. However, the summons were received back with the report that some lady had met the process server at the house in question and she had stated that previously the tenant was residing there but now he is not residin