SHAKUNTALA DEVI Vs. XTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. U. Khan, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) THIS is tenants' writ petition directed against order of the Trial Court and affirmed by Revisional Court striking off the defence of the tenants-peti tioners. Landladies respondents 3 to 5 A. D. Lyall and others have filed S. C. C. Suit No. 73 of 1986 against the petitioners for their eviction from the tenanted accommodation which consists of two kotharies, one veranda and a Courtyard. Rent is Rs. 10/- per month. Eviction was sought on the ground of default. Prayer for payment of arrears of rent has also been made. Two other suits against two other tenants had also been filed by the same landladies- respondents 3 to 5 and all the three suits were consolidated. However, this writ petition is confined only to S. C. C. Suit No. 73 of 1986. Additional Judge Small Cause Courts, Allahabad struck off the defence of the tenants-petitioners through order dated 16. 1. 1996. The Additional J. S. C. C. mentioned that landladies' Counsel admitted that entire rent had been deposited but it was deposited late. The Trial Court held that on the first date of hearing entire rent due till then had been deposited. In respect of the other two suits Trial Court held that there was no default. In respect of the suit in which petitioners are defendants it was found that in the deposit of monthly rent there was delay on several occasions (about ten ). Against the order dated 16. 1. 1996 petitioners filed Civil Revision No. 91 of 1996 which was dismissed on 2. 10. 1997 by Xth Additional District Judge, Allahabad hence this writ petition.

(3.) IN para 4 of the writ petition it has been stated that the amount de posited by the petitioners was withdrawn by the landlords. IN para 5 also it has been stated that "and whenever the rent was deposited by the petitioners, it was withdrawn by them (landladies ). "