CHHOTEY LAL Vs. GULZARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition filed by a defendant in a suit for ejectment. The suit for ejectment was filed on the ground of default. The defence was that the defendant had made deposite of the rent in dispute in proceedings under Section 30, U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The suit was decreed by the Court of Small Causes holding that there was a default. The notice was served by refusal. The defendant had no right to pay the rent to Ram Kali or deposit it under Section 30 aforesaid. There was no question of non-joinder as the plaintiff was accepted as landlord by payment of rent. The suit was decreed against the petitioner on 14th of October, 1977. He filed a revision under Section 25, Provincial Small Cause. Courts Act, before the District Judge, Kanpur. The revision was transferred to IIIrd Addl, District Judge, Kanpur, for disposal. 8th September, 1979, was fixed for hearing of the revision. The defendant was absent and consequently the revision was dismissed in default.

(2.) AN application for restoration was filed within four days showing that the petitioner's son-in-law was doing pairvi in revision. Respondent No. 2 reached the Court at 1 P. M. when the case was not taken up. Thereafter he went at about 2. 30 P. M. when he was informed that the case was dismissed in default. Sri Devendra Swaroop appearing for the respondent contended that the petitioner's pairokar or the petitioner himself has been negligent in prosecuting the revision. There is no doubt that there was negligence on the part of the petitioner or his agent.

(3.) IN the result, the petition is allowed. The Order dated 8-12-1979, dismissing the revision in default, is quashed. The revisional Court is directed to decide the case in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties. As the petitioner has been found guilty of negligence he is not entitled to any cost. The Revisional Court is directed to decide the revision in accordance with law. The revision may be decided expeditiously. Petition allowed. .