K L SEHGAL Vs. COMMISSIONER ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE main question raised in this special appeal is whether a revision under Section 3 of the U. P. (Tem porary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) can bo dismissed in default. The matter relates to a certain house at Kanpur. Dr. (Smt.) Mitter is the owner of the house; and Smt. Sehgal occupied a portion of the house as Dr. (Smt.) Mitter's tenant. The landlady applied for permission under Section 3 of the Act for eviction of the tenant. The Additional District Magistrate, Kanpur passed an order on 9-12-1968 granting the requisite permission to the landlady. The tenant filed a revision against the Addi tional District Magistrate's order granting permission. The Commissioner, Allahabad fixed the hearing of the revision at Kanpur on 19-3-1969. When the Commissioner took up the case at Kanpur on 19-3-1969, no one appeared before him on behalf of the tenant-revisionist. The Commissioner thereupon dismissed the tenant's revision in default.

(2.) AGAINST the Commissioner's order dated 19-3-1969, Smt. Sehgal filed a writ petition. The writ petition has been dismissed by a single Judge of this Court. Smt. Sehgal has, therefore, filed the pre sent special appeal.

(3.) IN Smt. Gajrani v. Smt. Ram Rati, 1964 All LJ 75 = (AIR 1965 All 547) it was held by a Division Bench of this Court that Order 41, Rule 17, C.P.C. per mits an appellate Court to follow the pro cedure of Rule 30 and dismiss an appeal on merits even though the appellant is ab sent. All that was decided in Smt. Gajraai's case was that it is open to the appel late Civil Court to dispose of a civil appeal on merits in spite of the appellant's ab sence. The problem in the instant case is the reverse. The question for considera tion here is whether a revision can be dis missed in default.