BAL KRISHNA Vs. RAMANAND DIXIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) B. M. Lal, J. This revision is directed against the impugned order dated 16-9-1989 passed by Sri S. K. Malviya, Judge, Small Causes Court IVth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jhansi whereby the defence of the applicant/tenant/revisionist has been struck of.

(2.) THE short facts leading to this revision as well as subsequent reference to this Bench made under Chapter V, Rule 6 of the Rules of the Court; are as under: One Ramanand and an other, landlords of Shop No. 64/2, Khatriyana Jhansi let out the shop to the applicant Bal Krishna at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month and ultimately brought an action against Bal Krishna for his eviction inter alia on the ground that Bal Krishna has not paid rent since 1-12-86 inspite of demand notice dated 18-2-88 which was served on him on 1-3-88. THE said suit was filed under the provisions of U. P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. During the pendency of the suit an application was moved on behalf of Ramanand and others, the plaintiffs under Order XV, Rule V, (Allahabad Amendment) of the Code of Civil Procedure for striking of the defence of the defendant Bal Krishna and the same has been allowed by the impugned order and the defence has been struck of. Hence this revision.

(3.) THE provision of Rule 6 deals with two contingencies. First contingency is, if the larger Bench is constituted to decide a case and the second contingency is, if the larger Bench is constituted to decide any question of law formulated by a Bench hearing a case. In the latter event i. e. in the second contingency where the larger Bench is constituted to decide any question of law, the decision of larger Bench on the question so formulated shall be returned to the Bench hearing the case and that Bench shall follow that decision on such question and dispose of the case.