Mr. Jaswant Singh, J.: - Petitioner(tenant)/Judgment Debtor is in revision under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban(Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 against the order dated 26.09.2012 passed by learned Rent Controller, Jagadhari whereby his objections have been dismissed.

2. In brief, facts of the case are that decree holder/respondent had filed an ejectment petition against the petitioner(tenant)/JD seeking his ejectment in which the petitioner(tenant) was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 18.03.2009. Thereafter, during the execution proceedings summons were sent to the petitioner(tenant) and was asked to be present on 29.01.2010 in the execution application, when the present application was moved whereby objections have been filed to the effect that he was never served notice in the main eviction petition and further stated that he has also filed an application for setting aside ex-parte order before the competent court and thus the execution cannot proceed further.

3. Upon notice, decree holder/respondent filed a reply whereby it was stated that the petitioner(tenant) was in fact proceeded ex-parte way back on 4.4.2006 and it was after a long time that the eviction order was passed against the present petitioner and, therefore, it is not believable that the petitioner was not in knowledge of the proceedings of the present application and as a matter of fact it is a tactic to delay the matter.

4. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, learned Executing Court vide impugned order dated 26.09.2012 dismissed the application. Hence the present revision.

5. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner(tenant)/JD and have gone through the case file carefully with his able assistance.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner(tenant)/JD has argued that the learned Executing Court has failed to take into consideration the fact that the JD/tenant was never served in the main eviction proceedings and furthermore, it was a specific case of the JD/tenant that the respondent (landlord)/decree holder is not his landlord and it is in fact one Ashok Kumar who is the landlord and thus the ejectment proceedings itself is an abuse of process of law as being not maintainable.

7. After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner(tenant) and going through the case file carefully, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present petition is devoid of merit and the same deserves to be dismissed. The learned Rent Controller has rightly enumerated the conduct of the petitioner(tenant) during the proceedings for eviction. The relevant portion of the said order is being reproduced hereunder for sake of convenience:-

“The rent petition was filed against the respondent on 09.04.2002 and thereafter, notice issued to tenant Raghubir Goel returned back with report of refusal and accordingly, his presence was ordered to be secured through munadi for 10.12.2002. On 10.12.2002, munadi was received back duly effected against him but he did not appear and accordingly proceeded against ex-parte. However, thereafter the file was taken up again on the same day i.e. 10.12.2002 and power of attorney was filed on his behalf. It means that he was watching the proceedings of the present case and when he proceeded against ex-parte, he appeared on the same day through his counsel. It shows the malafide on the part of the objector-JD Raghubir Goel from the starting of litigation. It is submitted on behalf of applicant that it was the duty of the Rent Controller to make an order for assessment on the appearance of respondent, however, it is pertinent to mention here that the case was fixed for tender of rent on behalf of tenant for 20.12.2002, but the file was take up twice and when the case was fixed for 24.12.2002, before the presiding officer, the tenant himself made a statement that the petitioner is not his landlord and, therefore, he did not want to make the tender to him. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant