1. 22nd October, 1980 was the first date of hearing. On that date the tenant along with his counsel appeared before the Rent Controller. It was not the case of the tenant or his counsel that on the first date of hearing along with summons served on the tenant, copy of the ejectment application was not supplied. On the other hand the report of the process-server was that the copy of the ejectment application was also passed the door of the tenant's house a he had refused to take the same. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the copy of the ejectment application was not served on the tenant.
2. The tenant failed to tender the arrears of rent on the first date of hearing. and therefore, did not avail of the proviso to Section 13 (2) (i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1948. Hence there was no option with the Courts below except to order the ejectment of the tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent.
3. Then the case of the tenant was that even if he did not tender the arrears of rent on the first date of hearing, no order of ejectment could be passed because the landlord sold the premises in dispute on l4th October, l981 in favour of Santosh Kumari and in that sale deed the right to recover the arrears of rent was not transferred nor the right to continue with the ejectment petition was transferred. Therefore, after 14th October, 1981 the ejectment petition became infructuous and no order of ejectment could be passed.
4. The Courts below have relied upon the judgment reported in Harnam Dass v. Sant Singh, (1979) 2 Rent LR 159, wherein on identical facts, it was held that if sale is made after the first date of hearing i. e. after default is committed by the tenant in not tendering arrears of rent, then the ejectment application can continued. The ejectment on the ground of personal necessity is personal to the landlord and after the sale the new landlord would have to seek ejectment on the ground of his personal necessity and will notb6e able to continue the proceedings on the basis of personal necessity of the previous landlord. This is not the situation in the case of nonpayment of rent. The tenant made himself liable for ejectment for non-payment of rent on the first date of hearing. This being not a personal right to seek ejectment, such ejectment proceedings can be continued by the purchaser landlord. Moreover, in this case the original landlord and the purchaser landlord both are parties. A defaulting tenant of such a kind cannot be allowed to continue in possession of the premises.
5. For the reasons recorded above, this revision is dismissed with costs.
6. Revision dismissed.