1987 (2) TMI 251

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... not choose to do so. In fact he could not do so as he had earlier thought it prudent not to enter the witness box though he put the question in issue in the proceeding to set aside the ex-parte order by contesting the statement of the tenant. In the circumstances we allow the appeal, set aside the judgments of the High Court and subordinate tribunals and dismiss the petition for eviction.
O. Chinnappa Reddy , S. Natarajan, JJ. [Judgment per: Chinnappa Reddy, J.]. - In this appeal by special leave, the tenant against whom an order or eviction has been made under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, is the appellant. The petition for eviction was based on the ground of default in payment of rent for the period Apri .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the respondent came on August 10, 1978 and collected the rent through draft the copy of which is Ex. A.I. He also deposed the respondent having told him that he has withdrawn the case. The applicant testified that the respondent again came in the month of November, 1978 and collected the rent for three months vide cheque and copy of the bank certificate is Ex.A.2. He has deposed that he stopped attending the court and instructed his Counsel accordingly as he was mistaken by the misrepresentation of the respondent. This statement made by the applicant has gone unrebutted. The respondent has not appeared in the witness box to rebut the allegations made by the applicant in his statement. The fact that the respondent received the rent from the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... continue and should be dismissed on the finding of the court in the proceeding for setting aside the ex-parte order was negative by the High Court on the ground that those findings were made in the context of setting aside the ex-parte order and not in the context of deciding the main petition for eviction. We think that the High Court was not right in brushing aside in this fashion the findings arrived at in the proceedings to set aside the ex-parte order. That the decision given by a Court at an earlier stage of a case is binding at a later stage is well settled, though interlocutory judgments are open for adjudication by an appellate authority in an appeal against the final judgment. In Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorajin Debi - 1960 (3) S.C.R .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X