- (1.) S. P. Mehrotra, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for quashing the judgment and order dated 11-10-2002 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 18, Meerut (Respondent No. 2) and the order dated 21-10-2000 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) passed by the learned Judge, Small Cause Court, Meerut (Respondent No. 3 ).
(2.) THE dispute relates to shop No. 45 (New No. 47) situate at Ahmad Road, Meerut. THE said shop has, hereinafter been referred to "the disputed shop. " From the allegations made in the writ petition, it appears that the respondent No. 1 (Plaintiff) filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent etc. under Section 20 (2) (a) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (in short "the Act") against the petitioner in respect of the disputed shop. It was, inter alia, alleged that the petitioner was the tenant in the disputed shop at the rate of Rs. 375 per month as rent and that the petitioner was in arrears of rent with effect from 1-10-1989 to 6-9-1996 which was not paid to the respondent No. 1 (Plaintiff); and that the tenancy of the petitioner was determined by serving a legal notice. The said suit was registered as S. C. C. Suit No. 186 of 1996. It further appears from the perusal of the impugned orders that the said suit was filed on 23rd October, 1996 whereupon summons were issued to the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1, despite service of summons, did not appear in the suit. Thereupon, 15th May, 1997 was fixed for ex parte evidence. On 15th May, 1997, the petitioner appeared before the Court, and moved an application for setting aside the order for recording ex parte evidence. The said application of the petitioner was allowed on 22-12-1997, and 15-1-1998 was fixed for filing written statement. Thereafter, on 17-2-1998, 17-3-1998 and 1-4-1998, the petitioner took time for filing written statement by moving applications. On 1-4-1998, on an application filed by the petitioner, 10-4-1998 was fixed for filing written statement, and 28-5-1998 was fixed for evidence.
(3.) ON 10-4-1998 again, the petitioner did not file the written statement, and instead moved an application No. 27-Ga praying for one month's time for filing written statement. Thereupon, the petitioner was granted 15 days' time for filing written statement. Even after the expiry of 15 days, no written, statement was filed by the petitioner on 25-4-1998 nor did the petitioner appear on the said date. In the circumstances, the Court on 25-4-1998 directed the suit to proceed ex parte, and 28-5-1998 (which had already been fixed in the suit) was fixed for ex parte evidence. ON 28-5-1998, the Presiding Officer was not present, and as such, 10-8-1998 was fixed in the suit. On 10-8-1998, the respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) was present. The ex parte evidence of the respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) was recorded, and ex parte arguments were heard on the said date i. e. on 10-8-1998. Thereafter, 11-8-1998 was fixed for judgment.;