REHAMT ALI vs JAVED UR REHMAN And Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of writ petitions regarding an ex parte ejectment order passed by a Rent Controller. The respondent-landlords filed for the petitioner's ejectment from a shop on grounds of lease violation and property reconstruction. Following the petitioner's failure to appear, the Rent Controller passed an ex parte order. The petitioner's subsequent application to set aside the ex parte order was dismissed by the Rent Controller, a decision upheld by the District Judge on appeal and subsequently by the High Court in writ jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had demonstrated sufficient cause for his non-appearance to justify setting aside the ex parte order. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts had correctly evaluated the evidence and concluded that the petitioner failed to establish sufficient cause. The Court found that the petitioner's actions were a deliberate attempt to prolong proceedings to maintain unauthorized occupation of the premises. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower courts' findings on the lack of sufficient cause.
- Whether an application to set aside an ex parte order in rent proceedings requires the demonstration of sufficient cause for non-appearance?
- Can a party prolong legal proceedings to maintain occupation of demised premises through repeated appeals and applications?
- Order IX Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--This order will dispose of C.P.S.L.A.No.718 and 719 of 1981, both being identical ases relating to rent matter between the same parties.
2. The facts leading to this petition, briefly, are that the respondents-landlord filed to separate applications for ejectment of their tenant, Ch. Rehmat Ali, petitioner, from a shop, one on the ground of violation of the terms of the lease deed and damage to the property, and the other for re-construction of the property in question. Both the cases were heard together by the learned Rent Controller. The petitioner failed to appear before the Court on 3-10-1977 and the ejectment applications were decided ex parte by the Rent Controller, The petitioner filed an application for setting aside the ex parte order on the same day. On this application, following to issues were framed:- (i)Whether the application under Order IX, rule 13 is not maintain-- able in its present form if so its effect? O.P.A.
(ii)Whether there is sufficient cause for setting aside the ex parte decree? O.P.A."
The parties led evidence on the second issue. After considering the matter the learned Rent Controller held that the application for setting aside the ex parte order was not competent in this case and the proper remedy for the petitioner was to file appeals before ---the District Judge. The petitioner, therefore, filed to appeals against the said orders (one in each case), before the learned District Judge. Both the appeals were dismissed by order, dated 21-2-1981. The petitioner then filed to writ petitions challenging the orders of he learned District Judge but these were dismissed vide the impugned judgments, dated 13-5-1981. He then filed Review Petitions, which to, were dismissed by the High Court.
3. Not being satisfied by any of the aforementioned orders of the three Courts below, the petitioner has chosen to file the present Petition for Leave to Appeal.
4. The counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Rent Controller had failed to consider the evidence led by the petitioner or the issue "whether there was sufficient cause" for his absence from the Court on 3-10-1973. Even if this contention is presumed to be correct, we notice that the learned Additional District Judge as well as the High Court have considered the evidence led by the petitioner on the said issue and came to the conclusion that the explanation offered by the petitioner for his non-appearance in they Court on 3-10-1977, did not furnish sufficient cause for setting aside the ex parte order. In fact, there appears to be substance in the view taken by the learned Additional District Judge, that the petitioner had absented himself merely to prolong the proceedings so as to be able to continue his occupation of the shop in question. This fact is borne out by the record which shows that through various appeals and applications mentioned above, he has managed to remain in occupation of the demised premises from the date of the order of ejectment (i.e.3-10-1977) until now (24-6-1981), i.e., for about 31 years.
In view of what has been observed above we find no force in the petition, which is consequently dismissed.