(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Rule 20, Order 5 – H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 – Eviction – Substituted Service – The process server had repeatedly reported that the respondent/tenant had been residing in Roorki, there was no occasion for directing the service to be effected through publication in newspaper having circulation in Shimla. Substituted service held not valid. (Para 11, 12)
(B) H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 – Section 24 (3) – Eviction – Appellate Authority – Remand – Plea that as per the mandate of Section 24 (3) of the Act, learned Appellate Authority had jurisdiction to hold further inquiry either himself or through the Controller, the wholesome remand is not permissible. Plea rejected – Held: In the instant case, entire proceedings were held ex-parte against the tenant and he did not have opportunity to show cause against the application filed by the landlord. To say that in such like cases also the Appellate Authority should hold further inquiry after setting aside ex-parte order will mean that the trial will have to be conducted by such authority and such exercise will take away the right of appeal of either of the parties. There is no provision of appeal under Act against the order passed by the Appellate Authority. (Para 5, 8)
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
2023 STPL(Web) 178 HP
[2023:HHC:10811]
Sudarshan Banga Vs. Mumtaz Abbas Naqvi
Civil Revision No.28 of 2014-Decided on 18-9-2023
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/2023-STPLWeb-178-HP.pdf
