B NMUNIBASAPPA Vs. GURUSIDDARAJA DESIKENDRA SWAMIGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition presented by a tenant against whom an application had been made by a person who claimed to be his landlord for his eviction on the ground that he was in default in regard to arrears of rent payable by him. On 6-10-1956, an order was made in those proceedings ex parte, ordering the eviction of the tenant. The tenant, thereupon, made an application on October 15, 1956, for getting that ex parte order set aside. The allegation that he made was that on the date on which the ex parte order was made against him he was present in Court although his advocate could not be present on account of his illness as a result of which he was being treated on that date in a private nursing home. According to him, when the case was called earlier in the day, although the tenant appeared before the Court, the-landlord did not. The case was accordingly kept by and was never called although he was waiting in the verandah of the court-hall till 5 p. m. that day. His story was that the court premises were crowded beyond capacity on that date on account of a very sensational trial which was going on in the Court of the Sessions Judge upstairs, with the result that he had to wait in the verandah of the court-hall of the learned Munsiff before whom the proceedings relating to this case were going on. It was only later that he came to know that an ex parte order for eviction had been made against him.

(2.) On this application, notices were ordered to the landlord. After the landlord has notified about this application and he filed his statement of objections, in which he repudiated the truth of the allegations made by the tenant, the case was posted on 23-11- 1956, for evidence, to 2-2-1957. On 2-2-1957, the case was again adjourned to 16-3-1957. On 16-3- 1957, the learned Munsiff made an order directing the parties to produce 'evidence by affidavits,' the meaning of which, as I understand it, is that the parties had to prove their allegations by the production of affidavits.

(3.) The landlord and the tenant, in addition to their own affidavits, produced two other affidavits each. The affidavits produced on the one side contradicted the allegations contained in the affidavits produced by the other side. The learned Munsiff, who preferred to accept the affidavits produced by the landlord and these of the other two deponents who had sworn to affidavits in support of the landlord's story, dismissed the application made by the tenant. It is that order against which this revision petition has been presented.