JUDGMENT

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

CM No.3875-CII of 2022

The present application has been filed for impleading the legal heirs of Late Ram Niwas, petitioner.

2. Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which are duly supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. The legal heirs of Late Ram Niwas, petitioner, details of whom have been given in para 3 of the application, are brought on record with all just exceptions.

CM No.3876-CII of 2022

3. Application is allowed as prayed for.

CR No.1208 of 2022

4. The present Civil Revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 15.01.2020 by which, the application filed for condonation of delay so as to decide the application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the exparte order dated 19.09.2012 as well as the exparte judgment and decree dated 13.01.2014, has been dismissed.

5. In the present case, the petitioners, who were the owners of booth No.4, Sector 15, Chandigarh filed an ejectment petition against the respondent-tenant, which petition was allowed in his favour by the judgment and decree dated 21.08.2003. The appeal filed by the tenant i.e. respondent herein against the judgment dated 21.08.2003 was dismissed on 11.02.2006 and even the revision petition against the said order was dismissed by this Court on 23.04.2007. The proceedings became final after the SLP filed by the respondent-tenant was also dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 03.08.2007. Keeping in view the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the possession of the booth in question was taken by the petitioners from the respondent on 01.10.2007.

6. As after taking over the possession of the booth, the premises was not occupied by the petitioners as envisaged under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, the respondent-tenant filed the suit under Section 13 (4) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act,1949 for the restoration of possession of the premises in question.

7. Notice was issued and the petitioners appeared in the said suit.

8. It has come on record that during the pendency of the said suit filed by the respondent for restoration of the possession, the premises in question was sold by the petitioners in the year 2012. Thereafter, the petitioners did not appear to contest the suit filed by the respondent-tenant and vide order dated 19.09.2012, the petitioners were proceeded ex-parte in the said suit.

9. Keeping in view the said ex-parte order, ultimately the Rent Controller passed the judgment on 13.01.2014 directing that the possession of the premises in question be restored back to the respondent-tenant.

10. After the judgment and decree dated 13.01.2014 was sought to be executed by the respondent-tenant, after a period of seven years from being proceeded ex-parte and five years after the ex-parte judgment and decree, the application was filed by the petitioner under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the exparte order dated 19.09.2012 as well as ex parte judgment and decree dated 13.01.2014 along with said suit. The application for condonation of delay of 1624 days was also filed. The said application seeking condonation of delay has been dismissed by the Courts below by the impugned order dated 15.01.2020, which order is under challenge.

11. Before deciding the claim of the petitioners as raised in the present revision petition, it may be noticed that order rejecting the application seeking condonation of delay was dismissed in January, 2020 whereas the present petition has been filed on 18.02.2022 i.e. after a period of more than two years of the rejection of even the said application, which actually shows the conduct as t