- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order dated 23-10-1997 passed by the Judge Small Causes Court decreeing the suit ex-parte and the order of the Revisional Court dated 20-11-1997 dismissing the revision against the said order.
(2.) THE plaintiff-respondent No. 3 filed suit for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages with the allega tions that the petitioner was tenant of the disputed premises at the rate of Rs. 150/-per month. He sent a notice demanding arrears of rent and terminating his tenan cy. THE tenant did not comply with the notice. It was further stated that the provisions of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Evic tion) Act, 1972 (in short the Act) were not applicable. THE petitioner did not file any written statement hut he sought adjourn ment. THE applications for adjournment were rejected and the Court proceeded under Order 8, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and decreed the suit. THE petitioner filed revision against the said order. THE Revisional Court dismissed the revision summarily as follows: "heard learned counsel for the parties. I do not find any substance in the revision and as such it is dismissed. " This order has been challenged in the present writ petition. I have heard Sri B. P. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent. In the suit the controversy was as to whether the provisions of Act No. 13 of 1972 were applicable and secondly, whether the tenant had committed default in payment of arrears of rent. The Judge Small Causes Court had to decide the suit in accordance with Order 20, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure framing points before delivering the judgment. The judg ment of the Trial Court does not refer to decision of any question of fact alter fram ing points and also does not refer to any evidence to come to its own conclusion. The petitioner had filed revision taking various grounds and some of the grounds related that the Court was not justified in rejecting the adjournment applications. The Revisional Court did not examine any of the material and recorded its own views in the matter and dismissed the revision summarily. The Revisional Court ought to have assigned reasons on the points involved in the revision.
(3.) CONSIDERING the fact and cir cumstances of the case the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 20- 11-1997 is hereby quashed. The Revisional Court is directed to decide the revision again in accordance with law within three months from today. The parties shall hear their own costs. Petition allowed. .;