ANIL KUMAR CHADDHA Vs. A D J MEERUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. B. Srivastava, J. This is a tenant's petition. The petitioners have sought a writ of certiorari for quashing an order dated 31-5-1993 of the J. S. C. C. , Meerut striking off their defence under Order XV, Rule 6, C. P. C. and the order dated 9-5-1994 of the Additional District Judge, Meerut confirming same in revision.

(2.) IN this writ petition counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3, the landlord, in response to notice. No rejoinder affidavit has however been filed on behalf of the petitioners. IN accordance with rules of the Court the petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission after hearing learned counsel for both the parties.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has contended that the conclu sions of the two courts below regarding non-deposit of the rent for the period 22-4-1989 to 21-5-1989 and 22-3-1992 to 21-5-1992 is factually incorrect, their view that there was no representation hence the defence was liable to be struck off, is legally unsustainable. The contention of the learned counsel for the contesting respondents on the other hand is that there being no material to show the deposit of rent for the period stated above, conclusion of the J. S. C. C. affirmed by the revisional court is correct, and that from the facts on record no extenuating circumstances were established so as to refrain from striking off the defence. Yet another contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the J. S. C. C. was not justified in keeping the application for recall of the order to proceed ex pane, which was filed earlier pending.