S.P.SRIVASTAVA, J. - (1.) BEING aggrieved by an order passed by the Revisional Court dated 14.5.1991 upholding the order of the trial Court dated 6.6.1985 whereunder it had rejected an application the defendant-petitioner seeking recall of the order dated 17.8.1982 and the order passed by the Revisional Court of the same date, dismissing the petitioner's revision directed against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court dated 16.7.1985 whereunder the S.C. Suit No. 110 of 1976, filed against him seeking his eviction from the premises in dispute and recovery of arrears of rent and damages for the use and occupation pendente lite and future had been decreed, the petitioner has now approached this Court.
(2.) THE parties have exchanged the affidavits and I have heard Mr. Rajesh Tandon, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R.K. Jain, learned Senior Counsel as well as Mr. H.S. Nigam, learned Counsel representing the landlord-respondents and have perused the record. The facts, shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of the present writ petitions which arise out of the same suit and are being disposed of by this common order, lie in a narrow compass. The plaintiff-respondents had filed a suit claiming a decree for recovery of possession of the premises in dispute which were under the tenancy of the petitioner and a decree for the recovery of Rs. 2,300/- towards the arrears of rent and mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 200/- pendente lite and future. This suit was contested by the defendants by filing a written statement wherein it was asserted that after adjusting various amounts only an amount of Rs. 635.78 was outstanding against the plaintiffs which required to be adjusted in future rent in respect of the accommodation in dispute. This assertion finds place in paragraph 21 of the written statement dated 4th October, 1976. On 6.2.1982, the plaintiff moved an application under Order 15, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for the striking of the defence on the ground that the defendant had not complied with the requirements envisaged under the aforesaid provision. The trial Court vide its order dated 17.8.1982 allowed the said application, holding that the defendant had failed to deposit the monthly amount of rent due without a week from the date of its accrual during the pendency of the suit. The defendant challenged the aforesaid order by means of a revision which was registered as S.C.C., revision No. 42 of 1982 but remained unsuccessful as the said revision was dismissed by the revisional Court on 21.10.1982, upholding the order passed by the trial Court. The revisional Court noticed that according to the defendant himself he was liable to pay rent from the month of January, 1977 but he had not paid any amount of rent whatsoever which had become due from January, 1977 and onwards. The aforesaid order passed by the revisional Court became final. Later on it appears that the defendant moved an application dated 30th August, 1982 praying that he may be permitted to deposit the amount of Rs. 11,215 and the order of the trial Court dated 17.8.1982 striking of his defence may be recalled and set aside. This application was objected to by the plaintiff on various grounds. The trial Court rejected the aforesaid application vide its order dated 6.6.1985 on the ground that the matter had already been considered in detail and the order dated 17.8.1982 had been affirmed by the Revisional Court also and, therefore, no ground was made for allowing the said application. The result was that the order whereunder the defence of the defendant had been struckoff became final and the trial Court after considering the evidence and the materials on the record decree the suit vide its judgment and order dated 16.7.1985. The trial Court upheld the validity of the notice terminating the petitioner's tenancy and found him to be a defaulter in the payment of rent within the meaning of Section 20(2)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to "as Act"). It also recorded a finding that the plaintiff had been successful in establishing the ground envisaged under Section 20(2)(c) of the Act as the alterations made in the building were such which clearly attracted the aforesaid provision. The trial Court was of the view that the suit was liable to be decreed on both the above grounds. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act which was dismissed upholding the findings recorded by the trial Court.
(3.) I have perused the impugned order dated 14.5.1991. It will be noted that the suit had been decreed by the trial Court on 16.7.1985. During the pendency of suit the order whereunder the defence of the defendant had been struckoff was affirmed in revision. In such circumstances, the order dated 14.5.1991, passed by the Revisional Court cannot be held to be vitiated by any error or jurisdiction so as to warrant an interference by this Court in the present proceedings.;