BASANT SINGH Vs. ROMAN CATHOLIC MISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenants/judgment-debtors/applicants who had filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC, seeking setting aside of the ex parte decree passed against them for their eviction from the premises in dispute under their tenancy and recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation, feeling aggrieved by the rejection of the said application by the Trial Court which order stands affirmed in appeal, they have now approached this Court by means of the present revision under Section 115, CPC, seeking redress and praying for the setting aside of both the orders.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the tenants/judgment-debtors/ applicants as well as the learned counsel representing the landlord/decree-holder/respondent and have carefully perused the record relating to the proceedings of the original suit as well as the proceedings under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC, giving rise to this revision which had been summoned pursuant to the order passed by this Court.

(3.) THE facts in brief shorn of details and which are necessary for the disposal of this revision lie in a narrow compass: The suit giving rise to this revision had been filed on 30-9-1985. The plaintiff had alleged that the accommodation in dispute had been let out to Rasal Singh, after whose death, the tenancy rights had devolved upon Basant Singh, his son and Hari Singh, his nephew. The premises in dispute had been let out at a monthly rent of Rs. 3/ -. The suit had been filed on the grounds envisaged under Section 12 (1) (a) and (e) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. A composite notice terminating the tenancy and demanding the arrears of rent was claimed (o have been served on 30-5-1983. Arrears of rent for the past 3 years was claimed to have been not paid. The suit had been filed for the recovery of the rent due for the last 3 years and for the payment of rent, damages for use and occupation at the same rate pendente lite in future.