SHAHIN BEGUM Vs. SAHNE HAHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this revision u/s 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act the revisionist (defendant) assailed the judgment and order dated 25.11.1997 and decree dated 10.12.1997 passed by the Judge Small Cause Courts (District Judge), Pauri Garhwal in S.C.C. Suit No. 2 of 1992 titled as Sri Sahne Ilahi Vs. Smt. Sahin Begum, whereby the learned J.S.C.C. (District Judge), decreed the suit of the plaintiff for eviction of the de­fendant from the suit premises and for recovery of the arrears of rent and dam­ages amounting to Rs. 13,554/- with costs and pendente lite and future dam­ages @ Rs. 300/- per month excluding water tax, sewerage tax and electricity charges on the prevalent rates.

(2.) THE suit no. 2 of 1992 was filed by the plaintiff (respondent) for recov­ery of rent and ejectment of the defend­ant (revisionist) from the suit premises on the ground that the plaintiff is the owner of the three storeyed house situ­ated at Jaya Nand Bharati Marg, Kotdwar within the municipal limits of Kotdwar and the defendant was a ten­ant in two room set with a latrine, bath­room of second storey in the said build­ing @ Rs. 300/- per month exclusive of 12.5% water tax, 3% sewerage tax, and Rs. 30 as electric charges. The defend­ant paid rent, water tax, etc. upto Oc­tober, 1987. The defendant did not pay rent, taxes and electric charges since No­vember 1987. Thus, the plaintiff gave notice on 22.1.1992 to the defendant demanding arrears of rent and other damages due payable within one month failing which the tenancy would termi­nate. The said notice was returned on 24.01.1992 with an endorsement "re­fused to receive" by the defendant. The defendant neither vacated the premises nor paid the rent within one month from the service of notice, hence the suit was filed.

(3.) AFTER filing of the written state­ment, the defendant did not deposit the admitted rent. Therefore, an application was moved by the plaintiff under Order 15 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code. On the next date, since the defendant did not appear, the Court ordered to pro­ceed ex parte. The application under Order 15 Rule 5 was withdrawn and suit proceeded ex-parte. On 16.06.1993, the plaintiff was examined. The suit was de­creed ex-parte. The decree was prepared on 24.06.1993. Thereafter, the defend­ant moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13, C.PC. which was allowed. On depositing the entire decretal amount, ex-parte judgment and decree dated 17.6.1993 and 24.6.1993, respectively were set aside.