SHIVABHAI JIJIDAS PATEL Vs. CHANDRASHEKHAR RAJNARAYAN PANDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Yatin Soni, learned Advocate for the respondent has argued this matter two days in instalments and he covered major part of his arguments. However, today though the matter was called out repeatedly he did not remain present. Therefore, the judgment is proceeded with.

(2.) The present revision application is filed by the original plaintifflandlord against the order dt. 24-1-1991 passed by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur in Civil Revision Application No. 3 of 1990 which was filed by the original defendant (tenant) against the order dt. 31-1-1990 passed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge (J.D.), Mirzapur dismissing the Restoration Application No. 87 of 1980.

(3.) The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner-plaintiff has filed the Regular Civil Suit No. 540 of 1983 against the respondent (original defendant) under Sec. 28 of the Bombay Rent Act for recovering the possession of the suit premises on the ground of arrears of rent, bona fide requirements and change of user. In the said suit summons was served on the defendant and he filed written statement (Ex. 8) on 29-9-1983. Thereafter the defendant did not remain present. The issues in the said suit were framed at Ex. 9 on 3-2-1984. Even the plaintiff-landlord took out an application at Ex. 20 under Sec. 11(4) of the Bombay Rent Act on 12-10-1984. A copy of the said application was also served on the defendant as it was sent Under Certificate of Posting. Thereafter the plaintiff's evidence was recorded at Ex. 23. However, neither the orginal defendant nor his Advocate remained present and ultimately ex-parte decree in the aforesaid suit was passed on 16-10-1985. The said decree was executed on the original defendant in Execution Application No. 52 of 1987 on 16-12-1987 and according to the landlord on the next day, i.e., on 17-12-1987 the suit premises were let out to another tenant.