SUHAGWATI Vs. VTH ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. U. Khan, J. The suit for ejectment was filed by landlord/respondent Nos. 3 to 8 (which terms includes their predecessors also) against the tenant/petitioner, proforma respondent No. 9 and Moti Ram, husband of the petitioner. Sri Moti Ram died before trial Court and was survived only by remaining defendant i. e. petitioner and respondent No. 9. The suit was registered as S. C. C. Suit No. 550 of 1975 on the file of J. S. C. C. , Meerut. Tenant filed a written statement which is Annexure 2 to the writ petition denying the very existence of relationship of landlord and tenant. 22-3-1977 was the date fixed in the suit, on which date petitioner filed adjournment application, which was rejected (the said rejection order is not on record ). On the same date i. e. 22-3-1977 the suit was decreed by J. S. C. C, Meerut. Copy of the judgment is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. It only says under heading findings that "the plaintiff has proved the case ex-parte he is entitled to the relief claimed. " Thereafter order for possession and recovery of Rs. 720/-in addition to mesne profit was passed. With regard to the said order the less said the better. Even if the suit is to be decided ex-parte the judgment must shows application of mind of the Judge. From the judgment it is not clear that whether plaintiff produced any witness or filed affidavit to prove his case. Against the said order and decree, petitioner filed a revision being S. C. C. Revision No. 108 of 1977 under Section 25 P. S. C. C. Act. V-Addl. District Judge, Meerut through judgment and order dated 28-8-1978 dismissed the revision. The revisional Court observed that applicant instead of preferring an application for setting aside the ex-parte order had filed the revision. The revisional Court did not touch the merit of the case and dismissed the revision mainly on the ground that the adjournment application was rightly rejected. It is mentioned in the judgment by the revisional Court that one of the ground on which adjournment application of the defendant was rejected by J. S. C. C. was that the rent had not been deposited. If the defendant was denying the relationship of landlord and tenant and liability to pay rent then there was no question of deposit of any rent. In any case the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court do not confirm to the minimum standard which is required to be maintained while passing ex-parte judgment and decree.

(2.) ACCORDINGLY writ petition is allowed. Judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below are set aside. The matter is remitted to J. S. C. C. , Meerut to decide the suit after providing opportunity to adduce evidence to both the parties.