- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. By means of this peti tion filed Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and decree dated 1-8-1996 passed by the Judge, Small Cause Court, Kanpur and judgment and order dated 27- 5-2000 whereby the revision filed by the petitioner was dis missed by the Court below.
(2.) IT appears that respondent No. 3 filed a suit for ejectment and recovery of rent and damages against the petitioner with respect to House No. 130/147, Baghahi Babu Purwa, District Kanpur Nagar, on the ground of default. IT was pleaded that the plaintiff-respondent No. 3 purchased half portion of the building in question i. e. 130/147 (ground floor) from Smt, Kalawati through a registered sale-deed dated 3-9-1981, which she got by par tition decree in Original Suit No. 2038 of 1967 passed by Munsif, Kanpur on 24-7-1970. Regarding the aforesaid sale-deed, the petitioner had knowledge from begin ning as he was intimated by the petitioner about the same. Respondent No. 3 before filing the suit also sent a notice of demand and termination of the tenancy upon the petitioner calling upon him to pay rent of the building from 3-9-1981 to 2-6-1984, which was served upon him but instead of making payment of rent, he replied the said notice with false allegations that Smt. Kalawati was not the owner of the said building and that he was not in arrears of rent. The petitioner was, therefore, liable to be ejected from the building in question. The petitioner filed his written statement denying the facts stated in the plaint. IT was pleaded that one Maikulal was the owner and the landlord of the house in question to whom he used to pay the rent and not Smt. Kalawati or the respondent No. 3. In support of his case respondent No. 3 filed evidence, oral and documentary, and proved his case. In spite of several oppor tunities afforded to the petitioner, neither the witnesses examined on behalf of the respondent No. 3 were cross-examined nor any evidence was produced by the petitioner. IT has been held that several adjournments were taken in the case by the petitioner but no evidence was produced. The trial Court, therefore, has no option but to proceed under Order XVII, Rule 3 C. P. C and decreed the suit by its judgment and decree dated 1-8- 1996. Challenging the validity of the said decree, petitioner filed revision before the Court below. The Court below affirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner by its judgment and order dated 27-5-2000, hence the present petition. 3, Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the trial Court acted illegally in decreeing the suit without affording opportunity of hearing and to produce evidence to the petitioner and that the Court below has also acted illegal ly in affirming the decree passed by the trial Court. The judgments and orders passed by the Courts below were, therefore, liable tote quashed. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also perused the record. 5. The Courts below nave recorded concurrent findings of feet on the question ofdefault. IThasbeenheldthatthepetilioner was in arrears of rent for more than four months and in spite of service of notice of demand, failed to pay the arrears of rent within the statutory time of 30 days to the respondent No. 3, the landlord. He there fore, committed default in payment of rent within the meaning of the term used under clause (a) of sub- section (2) of Section 20 of the Act. IT has also been held that the petitioner has illegally denied the relation ship of landlord and tenant between the parties and falsely urged that Maikulal was the owner of the building in question. The Court below has, after going through the entire record, held that several oppor tunities were provided to the petitioner to produce evidence in support of his case but he deliberately did not produce any evidence with a view to linger on the proceedings of the suit. The trial Court, therefore, was right in proceeding under Order XVII, Rule 3 CP. C. and that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court were quite legal, in view of the decision of this Court in Mohan Finance Company v. Punjab National Bank. In view of the aforesaid facts, submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was not afforded opportunity of hearing by the trial Court, cannot be accepted. The findings recorded by the Courts below are concurrent find ings of fact which are based on the relevant evidence on record. I do not find any il legality or infirmity in the same. No case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. 6. The writ petition fails and is dis missed in limine. Petition dismissed. .;