- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parries. This petition by the tenant is directed against concurrent judgments dated 30.5.1991 and 18.2.1995 by which the suit for eviction and arrear of rent together with taxes have been decreed by both the Courts below.
(2.) The respondent landlord instituted Suit No. 137 of 1983 before the Judge, Small Causes Court, Gorakhpur inter alia with the allegation that Abdul Samad, the father of the petitioner was a tenant in the disputed premises and on his death, the petitioner became tenant thereof, but he had defaulted in payment of rent @ Rs. 100/- per month w.e.f. 1st August, 1980 together with water tax etc. from 15.7.1972 and despite demand, they did not pay the same or vacated the premises. Thus, he preferred the aforesaid suit claiming rent from 1.8.1980 upto date together with water and other taxes w.e.f. 15.7.1972. During pendency of the suit, the other co-tenants, sons of Abdul Samad made an application for impleadment as co-tenants which application was allowed and they also filed their written statements. After evidence of the landlord was closed, despite several opportunities the defendants did not lead their evidence and as such an order was passed to proceed against them ex parte. Even thereafter they did not appear to cross-examine the witnesses produced on behalf of the landlord whereafter the suit was decreed with the finding that the tenant had committed default as contemplated under the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and since they did not deposit the entire rent, they were not entitled to get the benefit of sub-section (4) of section 20 of the Act. The petitioner filed Revision No. 160 of 1991 without impleading his other cotenants who preferred Revision No. 165 of 1991. It appears that the petitioner kept on getting his revision adjourned but the revision of the co-tenants was dismissed vide order and judgment dated 31st July, 1992. Consequently, the revision of the petitioner was also dismissed by the impugned order.
(3.) It is firstly urged that during pendency of the revision, one of the co-landlords Smt. Geeta Devi had entered into a compromise and accepted the rent and this aspect has not been considered by the Courts below and therefore, the order is vitiated.;