Narayan Shukla, J. - (1.) List is being revised. Case is called out. Mr. D.C. Mukerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner is present to argue the matter, but despite repeated calls no body present on behalf is of opposite parties.
(2.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.05.2000 passed by the Vth Additional District Judge, Kheri in S.C.C. Revision No. 9 of 1999. By means of order impugned the respondent's revision has been allowed and order passed by the trial court on 09.08.1999 has been set-aside with the direction that the respondents-revisionist shall not be evicted from the disputed premises.
(3.) Upon perusal of the judgment I find that on deposition of the amount as decreed, the court below has directed that it is a pure compliance of the Section-114 of the Transfer of Property Act, therefore, the revisionist is entitled to get restore the possession of the rented house, whereas upon reading of the facts of the case I am of the view that the same do not attract the provisions of Section-114 of the Transfer of the Property Act. The petitioner's suit for ejectment and recovery of rent has been decreed and she has been held entitled to get restore the possession of the rented house but because the revisionist-respondent deposited the decreetal amount before filing the revision the court of revision has held that the revisionist has made compliance of Section-114, therefore, he is entitled to get restore possession as tenant.;