Paramjit Singh vs Harnek Singh

Supreme Court9 April 2010R.M. Lodha · R.V. Raveendran

SCC(2010) 13 SCC 82

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where notice in an eviction proceeding under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 has not been personally served on a tenant, and the tenant makes a categorical statement that knowledge of the proceedings was obtained on a particular date, the court must accept that date as the date of knowledge in the absence of personal service and absent satisfactory material to show prior notice; a High Court exercising revisional jurisdiction ought not to interfere with the trial court's finding on this date merely by drawing inferences from circumstantial evidence without evidentiary support.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3280 OF 2010[Arising out of SLP(C) No.14957/2009]

PARAMJIT SINGH .......APPELLANT

Versus

HARNEK SINGH .....RESPONDENT

O R D E R

Leave granted. Heard the parties.

2. An eviction petition was filed against the

appellant on 4.2.2006. Notice was issued to appellant, but

was not personally served. The appellant-tenant entered

appearance on 9.8.2006. On 24.8.2006, the appellant-tenant

filed an application for permission to defend the eviction

proceeding wherein he specifically alleged that he obtained

knowledge of the proceedings only on 9.8.2006. On the

basis of the said averment, the application seeking leave

to defend the case was filed within the period of 15 days

of date of knowledge prescribed under Section 18-A(2) read

with Schedule II of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction

Act, 1949 ('Act' for short). The Rent Controller allowed

the application seeking leave to contest the proceedings by

his order dated 4.12.2007. The respondent filed a revision

petition challenging the said order. The High Court has

.....2.

- 2 -

allowed the said revision petition filed by the respondent

holding that the date of knowledge should be deemed to be

1.7.2006 and not 9.8.2006. It is also held that the Rent

Controller has no jurisdiction to extend the period of 15

days even if sufficient cause was shown. The said order is

challenged in this appeal by special leave.

3. It is not in dispute that no notice was

personally served upon the appellant-tenant. The appellant-

tenant in the application seeking leave specifically stated

that he got notice only on 9.8.2006. There was no specific

material to controvert the claim of the appellant-tenant

that the notice was served on 9.8.2006. The Rent Controller

rightly, therefore, proceeded on the basis that the date of

knowledge was 9.8.2006. But the High Court, acting on

inferences without any evidence to support it, has

proceeded on the basis that the notice should be deemed to

have been served on 1.7.2006 by way of 'munadi'

(substituted service).

4. We are of the view that this was wholly

unjustified. When the appellant-tenant had made a

categorical statement that he obtained knowledge only on

9.8.2006, in the absence of personal service and in the absence of any satisfactory

......3.

- 3 -

material to show that he had previous notice, the Court

ought to have accepted the date of knowledge as 9.8.2006.

At all events, the High Court, exercising revisional

jurisdiction, ought not to have interfered with the finding

recorded by the trial Court that the date of knowledge was

9.8.2006.

5. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside

the order of the High Court and restore the order of the

Rent Controller granting leave to contest. Having regard

to the facts and circumstances, we request the Rent

Controller to dispose of the matter expeditiously.

.........................J. ( R.V. RAVEENDRAN )

New Delhi; .........................J. April 09, 2010. ( R.M. LODHA )

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free