Prakash Krishna, J. - (1.) CHALLENGING the order dated 13th August, 1999 passed by the Court below whereby the application under Order IX, R.13 C.P.C. has been dismissed, the present revision has been filed under section 25 of the Small Causes Court Act. SCC Suit No. 32 of 1992 was instituted against the present applicants on the allegations that they are the tenants of the property in dispute and are in arrears of rent for more than four months. Inspite of service of notice of demand, they have not paid the arrears of rent. Tenancy was terminated by serving statutory notice. The suit was instituted in the year 1992. The defendant did not appear and the suit proceeded ex parte. Subsequently, on an application filed by the applicants, the Trial Court by the order dated 14th October, 1993 recalled the order ordering that the proceeding may continue ex parte and fixed 15th November, 1993 for filing the written statement. On 15th November, 1993, the defendant -tenant did not file any written statement on the pretext that it was declared holiday which has not been found to be correct as the defendant -tenant has signed the order -sheet. Thereafter, on 16th November, 1993 the case was taken -up but no written statement was filed. It was adjourned to 4th January, 1994. On 4th January, 1994 the defendant -tenant did not appear and ultimately, the suit was decreed ex parte. An application to set aside the ex parte decree was filed on the allegations that due to ailment in the eyes of defendant -tenant, he was advised to take complete bed rest, he could not appear on 4.1.1993. The application was contested by the plaintiff -landlord by controverting the contents of the application under Order IX, R.13 of the C.P.C. It was further stated that the tenant has not complied with the provisions of section 17 of the Small Causes Court Act. The Court below by the order under revision has dismissed the application filed under Order IX, R.13 C.P.C.
(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. The facts which are not in dispute go to show that number of opportunities were granted to the defendant -tenants to file written statement but he chosen not to file it. The case was adjourned for one reason or the others. The theory of ailment in the eyes has not been found to be established by the Trial Court. The Trial Court has noticed that in the application, the defendant -tenant has stated that he was informed by his Counsel on 15th January, 1994 at his residence that now 16th January, 1994 is the date fixed. While in the supplementary -affidavit filed by the wife of the defendant -tenant, it is mentioned that the defendant -tenant was confined to hospital on 3rd January, 1994 to 19th January, 1994. The Trial Court has disbelieved the theory which was propounded by the tenant. The view taken by the Trial Court on the material on record is perfectly justified and calls for no interference in the present revision.
(3.) BESIDES the above, the conduct of the defendant -tenant is blameworthy. Earlier he allowed the suit to proceed ex parte and at his instance, the said order was recalled and the time was given to him to file written statement but he did not file the same. It is not his case that he had no knowledge about the date i.e., 4th January, 1994 fixed in the suit. In this state of affairs, it cannot be said that the defendant -tenant was prevented by sufficient cause to attend the Court. The excuse given by him is nothing but lame cause and he does not deserve any sympathy of the Court.;