PUSHPA DEVI Vs. HARI MOHAN VARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

(2.) By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-landlady challenges the order dated 11th February, 2003, passed by the trial court in S.C.C. Suit No. 9 of 1997 as well as order dated 4th November, 2004, passed by the revisional court in S.C.C. Revision No. 2 of 2003, copies whereof are annexed as Annexures-'6' and 7', respectively to the writ petition.

(3.) The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner, who is the landlady (plaintiff in the suit) filed a S.C.C. suit in the year 1997 before the trial court against the tenant-respondent (defendant in the suit) for arrears of rent and ejectment against the petitioner-tenant from the shop in dispute. The trial court vide its order dated 20th May, 1998 decreed the suit ex parte for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment against the tenant-respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the tenant-respondent instead of depositing the decretal amount or giving security for payment the tenant gave undertaking for payment of decretal amount, filed an application 7 Ga on 25th August, 1998 under proviso to Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (In short 'the Act') for setting aside the ex parte decree. An objection has been raised by the petitioner-landlady to the entertainment of the application for setting aside ex parte decree passed by the trial court, as the same did not comply with the proviso to Section 17 of 'the Act'. Before the trial court, the objection of the landlady found favour and the undertaking submitted by the tenant-respondent was rejected on the ground that same is filed without complying the proviso to Section 17 of 'the Act'. Thereafter, the tenant-respondent filed a second application on 28th November, 2002, which was objected to by the petitioner-landlady. However, the trial court vide order dated 11th February, 2003 allowed the application filed by the tenant-respondent and set aside the ex parte decree. Aggrieved by the order passed by the trial court, the petitioner-landlady preferred a revision being S.C.C. Revision No. 2 of 2003 before the revisional court. The revisional court vide its order dated 4th November, 2004 dismissed the revision. Thus, this writ petition.