JUDGEMENT
Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. -
(1.)INITIALLY landlord -respondent No. 2 Smt. Parvati Devi was represented by Sri G.P. Mathur learned Counsel (as his lordship then was). After elevation of his lordship notices were issued to the respondent No. 2. Thereafter, fresh notices were directed to be issued through order dated 15.7.2003, Service of notice is sufficient under Chapter VIII, Rule 12 of the High Court Rules as per office report dated 11.11.2005, still no one has appeared on behalf of landlord -respondent No. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.
(2.)THIS is tenant's writ petition. Landlady -respondent No. 2 filed suit for eviction against tenant -petitioner before JSCC, Pilibhit. The suit was decreed on 17.7.1980. Against the said judgment and decree, tenant -petitioner filed SCC Revision No. 26 of 1980. Revisional Court/District Judge, Pilibhit through order dated 18.4.1981, struck off the defence of tenant -petitioner for delay in deposit of monthly rent during the pendency of the revision (Judgment of the Trial Court has not been filed however learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the Trial Court had refused to strike off the defence).
Tenant asserted that rate of rent was Rs. 45/ - per month. Trial Court found the rate of rent to Rs. 80/ - per month.
(3.)FIRSTLY , it is highly doubtful as to whether defence of the tenant can be struck off by the Revisional Court hearing revision under section 25 of Provincial Small Causes Courts Act for non -deposit of rent during pendency of the revision. During pendency of revision tenant is required to deposit rent or any other amount, which may be directed to be paid as a condition of the stay order.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.