N.L. Ganguly, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the land lord -Petitioner against the order of the revisional court. Initially, after receiving a notice for arrears of rent and ejectment, the tenant -Respondent No. 2 deposited the amount of rent under Section 30(1) of the U P. Act No. 13 of 1972. He continued depositing the amount of rent in the said miscellaneous proceedings. The proceedings under Section 30(1) of the Act remained pending for more than 5 years. In the mean time a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment was filed before the Judge, Small Causes Court, by the Plaintiff -landlord. The suit was decreed and a revision was filed in both the said proceedings. Ultimately, the tenant failed and now he has filed this writ petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order of his eviction which is pending.
(2.) AGAINST the order passed under Section 30(1) of the Act, the tenant -Respondent filed, a revision before the lower revisional court. The said revision was kept pending. After 2 years an application was filed by the tenant -Respondent in the said revision for filing additional evidence. The said additional evidence were the original record of money orders receipts etc. The learned revisional court after considering the said application for additional evidence recorded finding to the effect that its appears that the tenant has failed to file original receipts of the money orders and the refusal documents in the miscellaneous proceedings under Section 30(1) of the Act. The finding is that it is perhaps on account of a mistaken legal advice. The revisional court observed that the person cannot be penalised for mistaken legal advice given by the counsel. He was of the opinion that in such miscellaneous proceedings if technical procedures were not followed, the party may not be penalised for such follies. He considered it necessary in the interest of justice that the matter be remanded to the court of Munsif for fresh consideration of the proceedings in which the tenant -Respondent wanted to file additional evidence before the revisional court We remanded the matter in revision for decision of the learned munsif. Against the said judgment, the Petitioner has filed this writ petition. His main contention is that the matter was kept pending for more than 7 years and it was the negligence on the part of the tenant not to have filed the original record of the money orders receipts etc. by which the money orders were refused. He further stated that the documents now being sought to be filed as additional evidence is forged which could not have been permitted to be adduced in evidence. He further stated that the suit for arrears of rent has already been decreed and the matter is pending in writ petition before this Court. The submission is that in case the order of remand is allowed, it shall further delay the eviction proceedings against the Defendant -Respondent. After hearing the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, 1 am of the opinion that the finding of the court below is just and in accordance with law and justice has been done. Mere technicalities are of no impediments in the procedure for advancement of justice. In summary proceedings under Section 30(1) of the Act, generally the documents are filed and the strict procedure for proving the said documents are not complied with. It is not the Respondent No. 2 or the litigants in general who know the technicality of law. It is the lawyer experienced in law who advises the litigants. In case, proper legal advice was not given in time it would not shut the door for justice for such litigants. In the circumstances, I find that the judgment of the lower revisional court suffers from no error of law or jurisdiction. Therefore, no interference can be made in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition, in the result, is dismissed. No orders as to cost.
(3.) A copy of this order may be given to the learned Counsel within 10 days.;