- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgments and orders dated 17-2-1994, 22-4-1994, 11-7-1995 and 4-12-1996. It appears that the respondent No. 3, Masood Muzaffar, filed a suit for ejectment and recovery of rent against the defendant-respondents No. 4 and 5 as well as the petitioner who happened to be the sub- tenant in the building in question. Summonses were issued to the defendants. The defendants even after the service of summonses did not put in appearance nor filed any written statement. It was on 23- 3-1992 that the suit was directed to proceed ex parte. On an application made by the defendant respondents, the order to proceed ex-parte, dated 23-3-1992, was set aside by order dated 7-7-1992. Challenging the validity of the said order, the respondent No. 3 filed a revision. The revision filed by the said respondent was allowed by order dated 17-2-1994. It may be noted that the validity of the said order was thereafter not challenged and the order dated 17-2-1994 has become final. The trial Court thereafter proceeded ex parte and decreed the suit by the judgment and decree dated 24-2-1994. Challenging the validity of the said decree, the tenants-in-chief, the respondents second set, filed an application for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 24-2-1994. The said application was ultimately dismissed on 22-2-1995. The respondents second set did not challenge the validity of the said order. It was on 7-4-1995 that the present petitioner who was a pro forma defendant, filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree. The said application was dismissed by judgment and order dated 11-7-1995. Challenging the validity of the said order, the petitioner filed a revision before the Court below. The Court below also dismissed the said revision by the judgment and order dated 4- 12-1996. Hence, the present petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that in the judgment dated 22-4-1994 reasons/findings were not recorded as required under the law, therefore, the said judgment was liable to be set aside. It was also urged that under the facts and circumstances of the present case, the orders dated 11-7-1995 and 4-12-1996, referred to above, were illegal and are liable to be quashed.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the tenants-in-chief, i. e. , the respondents second set, did not challenge the validity of the order dated 22-2-1995. The said order has, therefore, become final and it was not open to the petitioner to either file the application for setting aside the ex parte decree or to file the present petition inasmuch as he was simply a sub-tenant whose fate was to be determined alongwith the fate of the chief tenant. The chief tenant having conceded to the order dated 22-2-1995, the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the ex parte decree and the revision before the Court below, were legally not maintainable. I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the record of the case.;