JAFAR ALI Vs. SMT. RAJ RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two civil revisions are between the same parties and arise out of the same suit and as such are being decided by a common order.

(2.) THE Plaintiff opposite party in these revisions is the landlord of a shop and the applicant was its tenant. A suit being suit No. 14 of 19OU was instituted by the opposite party for adjustment of the applicant and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages. The case of the opposite party was that the applicant was a tenant of the shop in question on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/ -, that he was in arrears of rent since July, 1979, and that notwithstanding the service of a notice dated 18th September, 1980, whereby a demand was made for arrears of rent and the tenancy of the applicant was terminated the applicant failed to clear off the arrears of rent. Consequently, he was a defaulter in payment of rent and was liable to adjustment. The suit was contested by the applicant inter alias on the ground that the rate of rent was Rs. 150/ - per month only and not Rs. 300/ -. He also asserted that he had paid the rent up to the month of July, 1980, and rent was due only since August, 1980. On account of certain deposits made by him the applicant also asserted that no decree for adjustment deserved to be passed against him. The validity of the notice Under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was also challenged by the applicant. The plea of immunity from adjustment on account of deposits made by the applicant was based on Section 20(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). None of the pleas raised by the applicant in his defense found favor with the court below and the suit was decreed on 19th April, 1985, for adjustment of the applicant as also for recovery of arrears of rent and damages. Thereafter the applicant made an application in the court below for setting aside the decree dated 19th April, 1985, on the ground that the said decree was ex -prate and deserved to be set aside in view of the facts stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application for setting aside the ex prate decree. Tins application was filed on Vtn August, 1985, and was dismissed on 8th August, 1985. Civil Revision Mo. 494 of 1985 has been filed agamas the decree dated 19th April, 1985, whereas Civil Revision No. 516 of 1985 has been filed against the order dated 8th August, 1985, dismissing the application lore setting aside the ex prate decree.

(3.) FROM a perusal of the order dated 8th August, 1985, dismissing the application to set aside the ex -prate decree it appears that it was admitted before the court below that the parties had closed their evidence both oral and documentary on 18lh November, 1982. Consequently, only arguments had remained to be heard. It leather appears from the said order that arguments could not be heard on several dates inasmuch as on one ground or the other the case had to be adjourned at the instance of the defendant applicant sometimes on the ground of illness and sometimes on the ground that his counsel was not ready with the case. It also transpires from the order -sheet of the court below that the case could not be take -up after 18th November 1*82 till 18th May, 1984, i. e., nearly tore one and a half years, even though it was a small cause court sun. When the case was taken up on 18tn May, 1984, as the order sheet indicates, again an application was made by counsel for the Defendant -applicant for adjournment of the case on the ground that the Defendant had gone out. Even this application was allowed and 2nd July, 1984, was fixed for arguments. It appears that on some date between 18th May, 1984 and 2nd July, 1984, the Presiding Officer was transferred and by an order of the District Judge dated 13th September, 1984, the suit was transferred to the court of the 4th Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur. The order sheet dated 10th December, 1984, indicates that the file was received by transfer in the court of 4th Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur, on that date and 19th January, iy83, was fixed tore arguments. The case was Ultimately decided on 19th April, 1985.