The court upheld the validity of the ex-parte order under Article 227, dismissing the appeal for lack of merit in challenging service.

JUDGMENT :

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral)

This is a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 23.08.2024 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Rent Controller, Malerkotla, vide which the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 31.05.2022 vide which the petitioner was proceeded against ex-parte, has been partly allowed to the extent that he was permitted to join the proceedings.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner was respondent no.2 in the eviction petition and had an independent right to oppose the eviction petition filed by the landlords. It is submitted that the petitioner is residing separately from his brother respondent no.3 (in the eviction petition) and thus, because respondent no.3 had been served, the same could not be taken as a ground that respondent no.2 had also been served. For the said purpose, the petitioner has referred to the Aadhar card, which is annexed as Annexure P-3. It is submitted that the petitioner learnt about the ex-parte order on 04.08.2024 when Mohd. Ikhlaq (landlord -respondent no.2 herein) had threatened the petitioner that he would be evicted from the shop in dispute and thereafter, the petitioner started searching on the website of the Court and found that an ex-parte order dated 31.05.2022 has been passed. It is submitted that the petitioner has only been permitted to join the proceedings from the stage when the impugned order had been passed whereas the petitioner should be permitted to file a written statement and also to cross-examine all the witnesses which have been examined by the landlords.

3. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and has perused the paper book and is of the opinion that the impugned order is in accordance with law and deserves to be upheld and the present revision petition being meritless, deserves to be dismissed.

4. Apparently in the present case, the petitioner, who is the brother of Iftkhar Ali son of Mohd. Ali who is shown as respondent no.3 in the eviction petition, is playing hide and seek with the Court in collusion with his brother Iftkhar Ali. Respondents no.1 and 2 herein had filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 from the premises in question, which is a shop, on 03.11.2021. In the said application, in addition to the present petitioner, four brothers of the present petitioner, sister of the present petitioner and mother of the present petitioner were impleaded as party. The same was done because as per the case of the landlords, Mohd. Ali, who was the predecessor-in-interest of respondents no.1 to 7 (before the Rent Controller), had taken the premises in question and after his death, respondents no.1 to 7 (before the Rent Controller) were his legal representatives. It is not in dispute that Iftkhar Ali, son of Mohd. Ali, who is the brother of the present petitioner and was shown to be the resident of Sunami Gate, Malerkotla, which was also the residential address mentioned for the present petitioner in the rent petition, was duly served and had filed his reply dated 31.10.2022. A perusal of the said reply would show that he had admitted the fact that Mohd. Ali had died and after his death, the answering respondent was in possession of the shop in question and was carrying on his business. A perusal of the zimni orders, moreso, zimni order dated 31.01.2022 would show that even respondent no.l before the Rent Controller i.e., Mohd. Shahid, who is also the brother of present petitioner and abovesaid Iftkhar Ali, had been served but he had not come present. The p