Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sandeep Singh Sekhon And Others vs Harbans Singh Sandhu on 5 December, 2023
Author: Karamjit Singh
Bench: Karamjit Singh
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154632
CR-1719-2023 [1] 2023:PHHC:154632
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR-1719-2023
Reserved on 14.11.2023
Pronouncement on 05.12.2023
Sandeep Singh Sekhon and others
...Petitioners
Versus
Harbans Singh Sandhu
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH
Argued by: Mr. Aayush Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Vaibhav Sehgal, Advocate for the respondent(s).
****
KARAMJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioners/tenants being aggrieved by order dated 4.8.2022
passed by the Court of Rent Controller-cum-Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Ludhiana, whereby the petitioners were proceeded against ex-parte and
order dated 6.3.2023, whereby an application filed by the petitioners for
setting aside aforesaid ex-parte order dated 4.8.2022 has been dismissed in
rent petition having CIS No.RP/350/2022 titled Harbans Singh Sandhu vs.
Sandeep Singh Sekhon and Others, have filed the present petition.
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent/landlord filed
eviction petition against the petitioners with regard to property bearing UID
No.PT-1206-115531 popularly known as Hotel Mini Holland, Mullanpur
Dakha (Ludhiana) under Section 24 (1)(c) of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 as
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154632
CR-1719-2023 [2] 2023:PHHC:154632
amended by Act of 2014 (in short Rent Act), on the grounds that:-
(i) the said premises is required by the respondent/landlord (a senior citizen)
for his own use and also for use and occupation by his son Rupinderjit
Singh Sandhu;
(ii) the petitioners are in arrears of rent.
3. The notice of the eviction petition was issued to the
petitioners/tenants for 04.08.2022 as per the provisions of Rent Act, with
direction to petitioners to file an application for leave to defend within a
period of 15 days of service of notice. Petitioners failed to appear in the
Court within the aforesaid statutory period and were proceeded against ex-
parte on 04.08.2022. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an application on
01.09.2022 seeking setting aside of ex-parte proceedings. The said
application was contested by respondent and the Rent Controller dismissed
the said application vide order dated 06.03.2023. The petitioners being
aggrieved by orders dated 04.08.2022 and 06.03.2023 have filed the present
petition.
4. I have heard the counsel for the parties.
5. The counsel for the petitioners has, inter alia, contended that in the
instant case no proper service of the petitioners was effected. That as per
provisions of Section 38 (4) and (5) of the Rent Act, the summons in relation
to rent petition, would be in form specified in Schedule III of Rent Act. That
summons to petitioners were not issued in accordance with the aforesaid
mandatory statutory provisions, as no summons were served at the place
where the petitioners actually and voluntarily resides. That as the summons
were not issued to the petitioners in specified form, and further the
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154632
CR-1719-2023 [3] 2023:PHHC:154632
petitioners were not served in person, such service could not be treated as a
proper service of the petitioners. The counsel for the petitioners has further
contended that when the petitioners came to know about the pendency of the
rent petition for the first time, they immediately approached the Court of
Rent Controller, Ludhiana for setting aside the ex-parte order dated
04.08.2022 and the said application is dated 01.09.2022. The counsel for the
petitioners while placing reliance upon Harvinder Pal Kaur and Another
Vs. Kuldeep Singh Gurm @ Kuldeep Singh and Ors. 2011 (2) RCR (Civil)
804 and Satish Kumar Vs. Dev Raj 2012 (4) RCR (Civil) 102 and Manjeet
Singh Vs. Manveer Pal Singh Gill 2022 (2) RCR (Rent) 288, has contended
that as in the present case service of summons was not effected in
consonance with the mandatory provisions of the Rent Act, the application
filed by the petitioners seeking setting aside of ex-parte proceedings dated
04.08.2022 deserves to be allowed. The counsel for the petitioners has
further contended that the mere request of the petitioners is to set aside ex-
parte order dated 04.08.2022. That as per the ratio laid down by this Court in
Smt. Sahib Kaur Vs. Sukhbir Singh and Others 2006 (3) RCR (Civil) 620,
the petitioners could be allowed to join the proceedings at any stage and the
application for setting aside of ex-parte proceedings cannot be dismissed
merely on the ground of delay. The counsel for the petitioners has further
submitted that the Court of Rent Controller while dismissing the application
seeking setting aside of ex-parte proceedings, took it as an application filed
for seeking leave to defend the rent petition. The counsel for the petitioners
further submits that interest of justice demands that the litigation between
the parties should be decided on merits after affording opportunity of
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154632
CR-1719-2023 [4] 2023:PHHC:154632
hearing to both the parties. So prayer is made that the ex-parte proceedings
against the petitioners be set aside and accordingly, the present petition be
allowed.
6. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent while
supporting the orders dated 04.08.2022 and 06.03.2023 passed by the Court
of Rent Controller has argued that there is no illegality or perversity in both
the said orders which were passed by the Court concerned in accordance
with law. It is further contended that the notices of the rent petition in the
present case were served by way of alternative modes to the petitioners as
per the provisions of Section 38 (4) and (5) of the Rent Act. That the said
modes of service of notices were by way of summons as prescribed in
Schedule III of Rent Act, registered post with acknowledgment due, under
postal certificate (UPC) and by way of Munadi. It is further contended that
the service of the said notices was effected on petitioners through their
authorized agent (Manager), at the place where they were carrying on
business i.e. Hotel Mini Holland, Mullanpur Dakha. The counsel for the
respondent while referring to the summons issued in form prescribed in
Schedule III of Rent Act, has submitted that 15 days time from the date of
service of notice was given in the said summons, to the petitioners to appear
and contest the rent petition. That however, the petitioners failed to appear in
the Court of Rent Controller within 15 days of effecting service on them.
That as per summons the next date of hearing was fixed as 04.08.2022. That
even on 04.08.2022 no one appeared in the Court and resultantly, the
petitioners were preceded against ex-parte on that date. It is further
submitted that even within next 15 days no application was filed by the
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154632
CR-1719-2023 [5] 2023:PHHC:154632
petitioners for setting aside ex-parte proceedings or for seeking leave to
defend. It is further contended that application for setting aside ex-parte
proceedings was filed by the petitioners only on 01.09.2022 i.e. after expiry
of the stipulated period of 15 days from the date on which the service was
effected. The counsel for the respondent while placing reliance upon the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Om Parkash Vs. Ashwani Kumar
Bassi 2010 (4) RCR (Civil) 163 has submitted that the Rent Controller is
having no jurisdiction to condone delay in case application for leave to
defend is not filed by the tenant within prescribed period of 15 days. The
counsel for the respondent also referred to decision of this Court in Ashwani
Kumar Gupta Vs. Siri Pal Jain 1998 (2) RCR (Rent) 222 wherein also
similar view was taken. The counsel for the respondent has further
contended that in light of the settled position of law as has been discussed
above, the learned trial Court rightly passed impugned order dated
06.03.2023 whereby the application filed by the petitioners seeking setting
aside of order dated 04.08.2022 has been dismissed.
7. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the
parties.
8. Admittedly, respondent a senior citizen aged about 80 years has
filed rent petition under Section 24 (1) (c) of Rent Act against the petitioners
on the ground of his own personal use and further for use and occupation of
the demised premises by his married son Rupinderjit Singh Sandhu. The
notice of the rent petition was issued to the petitioners on 02.07.2022
through summons, registered post as well as Munadi and affixation and the
next date fixed was 04.08.2022. The summons were issued in form as
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154632
CR-1719-2023 [6] 2023:PHHC:154632
prescribed in Schedule III of Rent Act wherein it was specifically mentioned
that tenants have to apply for leave to contest within 15 days of service of
notice. The notices of the rent petition were also issued through registered
post, acknowledgment due and further separately through Munadi and
affixation. It appears that the summons issued in form as per Schedule III of
Rent Act were served to the petitioners through Manager Yuvraj Singh, at
the premises where they were carrying on their business i.e. Hotel Mini
Holland, Mullanpur Dakha, Ludhiana. The tracking record of registered
acknowledgment was also produced to show that even the notices sent
through registered post were also received by the addressees. Even it appears
that the petitioners were also served through Munadi and affixation at their
aforesaid address. Summons as prescribed in Schedule III were served to the
petitioners through their Manager on 09.07.2022, while service through
Munadi and affixation was affected on petitioners on 26.07.2022 and
registered posts were received by the addressees on 08.07.2022. From the
perusal of order dated 04.08.2022 it is evident that none appeared on behalf
of the petitioners within 15 days of service of notice to them by way of
summons issued as per Schedule III of Rent Act and accordingly, the
petitioners were proceeded against ex-parte on 04.08.2022. Admittedly,
application for setting aside aforesaid ex-parte proceedings was filed by the
petitioners on 01.09.2022. Thus, making it clear that in the instant case no
leave to defend was filed within statutory period of 15 days from the date of
service of notice. Even the application for ex-parte proceedings was filed by
the petitioners after more than 15 days of the date fixed i.e. 04.08.2022 and
the said application was not supported by any application under Section 5 of
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154632
CR-1719-2023 [7] 2023:PHHC:154632
the Limitation Act. The reason given by the petitioners for their non
appearance within statutory period of 15 days of the service of notice is that
respondent got registered FIR No.86 dated 03.06.2022 in Police Station
Dakha against the petitioners and that the petitioners were apprehending
their arrest and after getting bail, the petitioners filed an application for
setting aside of ex-parte proceedings against them. However, the aforesaid
plea was not taken by the petitioners in their application (Annexure P-2)
filed by them seeking setting aside of ex-parte order dated 04.08.2022.
9. It is settled position of law that the tenant shall have to apply for
leave to contest within 15 days of effecting service on him and no
application shall thereafter be entertained and the Rent Controller has no
power to condone the delay in filing such an application, as has been held by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prithipal Singh Vs. Satpal Singh (Dead)
through his LRs 2010 (1) RCR (Civil) 608 wherein delay of 8 days by
tenant in seeking leave to defend was declined. The similar view was taken
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Om Parkash's case (supra) wherein also one
day delay in filing of application for leave to defend was not condoned. This
Court in S.Sadhu Singh Vs. Col. Avnish Sharma and another 2010 (1)
RCR (Rent) 12 also held that the period of 15 days within which the tenant
is required to apply for leave to contest from the date of receipt of summons
is mandatory and the Rent Controller is having no jurisdiction to extend the
said statutory period.
10. Admittedly, in the present case no application seeking leave to
defend was filed by the petitioners within stipulated period of 15 days of
service of notice. Even the application seeking setting aside of ex-parte
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154632
CR-1719-2023 [8] 2023:PHHC:154632
proceedings dated 04.08.2022 was also filed much beyond the aforesaid
statutory limit. Further no plausible reasons are given in the application
(Annexure P-2) to explain the delay in filing of application, despite the fact
that petitioners were duly served through their authorized agent on
09.07.2022 and said summons were issued in form as prescribed in Schedule
III of the Rent Act and service by alternative modes was also effected as per
mandatory provisions of the said Act, at the place of business of the
petitioners. Otherwise also, the Rent Act being complete code, the
provisions of Limitation Act would not be applicable to the eviction petition
filed by the respondent.
11. In the light of the factual matrix and the settled position of law
as has been discussed above, the Rent Controller rightly dismissed the
application filed by the petitioners seeking setting aside of ex-parte
proceedings dated 04.08.2022. Consequently, finding no infirmity with the
impugned orders dated 04.08.2022 and 06.03.2023 of the Rent Controller,
Ludhiana, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed being devoid of
merits.
05.12.2023 (KARAMJIT SINGH)
Yogesh JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154632
8 of 8
