AJAY KAUSHIK Vs. 4TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (for short the Act), is directed against the ex part judgment and decree dated 31-5-2012 passed by the Additional District Judge/4th F.T.C./Judge, S.C.C., Dehradun (for short the J.S.C.C.) in S.C.C. Suit No.67 of 2011, Keshar Singh Vs. Ajay Kaushik, whereby the suit of the plaintiff-respondent no.2 has been decreed ex parte and the defendant-revisionist has been directed to vacate the premises in suit and handover its vacant possession within a period of 30 days to the plaintiff-respondent no.2 and to pay the arrears of rent and damages @ Rs. 6000/- per month as mentioned in the impugned judgment and decree. The revisionist has further assailed the order dated 21-9-2012 passed by the learned J.S.C.C. whereby the application for setting aside ex parte decree has been rejected as not maintainable for want of compliance of mandatory provisions as contained in Proviso appended to Section 17(1) of the Act.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the present revision are that the respondent no.2 filed an S.C.C. suit for recovery of arrears of rent and for eviction of the revisionist-defendant before the J.S.C.C. alleging therein that the defendant was given on rent the premises in suit for residential purposes on a monthly rent of Rs. 4,000/- in addition to electric and water taxes and a rent note was executed between the parties on 13-7-2011 thereby the tenancy of the defendant was to run from 20-6-2011 for a period of 11 months. The defendant violated the terms and conditions of the rent note and has defaulted in payment of rent since 20-9-2011; that the rent had not been paid despite demand made by the plaintiff; that a registered notice was sent to the defendant thereby terminating the tenancy of the defendant as well as demanding arrears of rent, which was refused to accept by the defendant; that there has been arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 20233/- and Rs. 2000/- towards charges of notices, hence the suit has been filed claiming arrears of rent and damages for illegal use and occupation @ Rs. 500/- per day and for eviction.

(3.) Summons was issued to the defendant-revisionist which was not service, therefore, the service of summons was effected by publication, but the defendant did not turn up to put in appearance and to contest the suit, hence the suit was ordered to proceed ex parte against the defendant-revisionist.