NASIM AHMAD Vs. IVTH ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE MERRUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed S.C.C. Suit No. 21 of 1997 against the petitioner in the court of Judge Small Causes Court. Meerut, for eviction and for recovery of arrears of rent. The eviction was sought alleging that the premises in suit was constructed in the year 1990. The suit having been filed in the year 1997, the provisions of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 does not apply to the premises in suit. The suit for eviction as well as for recovery of arrears of rent was decreed by Judge Small Causes Court. Meerut, on 18.7.1998 by Judgment. Annexurc-8 to the writ petition. Aggrieved by it the petitioner preferred S.C.C. revision No. 374 of 1998, which has been dismissed by respondent No. 1 on 30.3.1999 by judgment. Annexure-9 to the writ petition. Aggrieved by the orders, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the request that both the orders. Annexures-8 and 9 to the writ petition be quashed and the suit of the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 be dismissed with costs.

(2.) I have heard Sri K. K. Arora. learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R. K. Jain, learned senior advocate for respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

(3.) The first argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent No. 4 is posted as District Judge and respondent No. 3 is his wife. That taking undue advantage of the position, the decree has been obtained in hot haste. That the adjournment application moved by the petitioner was rejected and the matter was decided by the learned Judge, Small Causes Court without providing opportunity to the petitioner to produce the evidence and hearing. The copy of the order sheet has also been filed in support of the argument, which is Annexure-6 to the writ petition. It is contended that the order sheet shows that on 16.7.1998, the petitioner moved the application for adjournment on the ground of his illness. That the case was adjourned only for one day and 17.7.1998 was fixed though the petitioner was ill. That on 17.7.1998 the petitioner again moved an application for adjournment on the same ground. The application was also supported by medical certificate, even then the application was rejected. That proper opportunity of hearing was not granted and the suit was decided in hot haste under the pressure of the respondents.