RAM PRASAD Vs. MAHARAJ SARAN SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Heard learned counsel for petitioner.

(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders passed by Judge, Small Causes Court as well as revisional court. Respondent-landlord after giving notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act when rent was not deposited, filed a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment. Suit was decreed ex-parte. Then on application made by petitioner, exparte decree was set aside and petitioner was given an opportunity to be heard and ultimately after hearing both the parties, suit was decreed vide its judgment and order dated 26.7.2007 holding that petitioner is defaulter and has not complied Section 20 Sub Clause 4, therefore, he is liable for ejectment.

(3.) SRI Jamal Ali, learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits that from perusal of judgment passed by Judge, Small Causes Court, it is clear that relevant issue regarding whether petitioner was defaulter or not, has not been framed, therefore, in view of Apex Court judgment reported in 1993 ACJ, 597 Rameshwar Dayal Vs. Banda (Dead) through his L.R.S. and others has placed reliance upon para 19 of the said judgment. The same is being quoted below:-