IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 123 of 2025 Decided on: 07.04.2025 Urmila and Ors. .…Petitioners. Versus R.K. Soni. …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Ravinder Singh Jaswal, Advocate. For the respondent : Nemo. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) Heard. 2. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner against order dated 17.02.2025, passed by learned Rent Controller, Court No.1, Shimla, H.P., whereby the defence of the petitioner has been struck off. 3. Petitioner herein is the tenant and respondent/landlord has filed a petition for his 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:9295 ) eviction under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control, Act, 1987. 4. The Rent Controller issued notice to the tenant for appearance in the Court returnable on 01.10.2024. Though, the tenant was duly served, he did not choose to appear on the date fixed and accordingly the tenant was proceeded against ex-parte and the case was adjourned to 26.11.2024. 5. On the next date i.e. 26.11.2024, the tenant came up with an application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for setting aside ex-parte order dated 01.10.2024. Learned Rent Controller allowed the application of the tenant on the same date i.e. 26.11.2024, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 1,000/-. The matter was thereafter adjourned to 20.12.2024 to enable the tenant to file reply and to pay the cost. 6. On 20.12.2024, neither reply was filed nor the cost was paid. The time prayed by the tenant was allowed by learned Rent Controller, subject to further cost of Rs. 500/-. It was clearly ordered by the 3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:9295 ) learned Rent Controller that the costs were to be paid on or before the next date of hearing, failing which the right to file reply would be closed. The matter was adjourned to 17.02.2025. 7. On 17.02.2025, again neither reply was filed nor the costs were paid. Learned counsel appearing for the tenant again prayed for some time to comply with previous order, which was declined by learned Rent Controller and in these circumstances the impugned order came to be passed. 8. By way of instant petition, now the tenant has submitted that the date of 17.02.2025 happened to fall immediately on re-opening of the Court after Winter Vacation. The counsel representing the tenant had gone to his native village due to urgent and unavoidable work and hence he could not come back on the said date. Some other counsel had appeared for the tenant as vice to the original counsel and had made a request to the Court but his request was declined. 4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:9295 ) 9. The impugned order does not reflect that the counsel appearing for the tenant on 17.02.2025 had made any specific request or had shown any reason for non-appearance of the original counsel for the tenant or the tenant himself. Even otherwise, there is no explanation from the tenant as to why he did not appear before the Court on 17.02.2025, in case his counsel was not in a position to appear for his personal benefit. The payment of cost was made a condition precedent vide order dated 20.12.2024. Even the costs were not paid on 17.02.2025 and again no explanation has been rendered for such omission. 10. In result, no illegality or perversity is found in the impugned order. It is also not a case of error of jurisdiction. 11. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 12. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) 7th April, 2025 Judge (sushma)