Vikram Nath, J. - (1.) THIS petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.9.1984, passed by the Additional District Judge, Jhansi, in S.C.C. Revision No. 122 of 1979, Raghubar Dayal v. Sri Hanuman Ji Maharaj Birajman Mandir outside Baragaon gate, Jhansi, whereby the revision of the respondent -tenant was allowed and the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 14.7.1979 was set aside and the suit of the plaintiff -petitioner for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment was dismissed. The dispute relates to house No. 90, Parwana, Jhansi of which the petitioner is the owner and landlord and respondent No. 3 is the tenant. There was default in payment of rent. Petitioner, after giving notice terminating the tenancy and for recovery of arrears of rent filed suit. The said suit for recovery of rent and ejectment, was registered as Small Causes Suit No. 4 of 1976 in the Court of Judge, Small Causes Court, Jhansi. According to the plaintiff -petitioner the rate or rent was Rs. 50/ - per month and there was default w.e.f. 1.1.1971. The tenant filed written statement alleging therein that the rate Rs. 5/ - per month and he had regularly paid the rent and there was no default in payment of rent. The Trial Court vide judgment dated 14.7.1979, held that the rate of rent was Rs. 5/ - per month as stated by the tenant, but recorded the finding that even at the rate of rent of Rs. 5/ - per month, the tenant had not deposited the rent and is defaulter, and was liable to be ejected. The Trial Court, accordingly, decreed the suit for recovery of arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.1.1973 till 7.12.1975 on the ground that the plaintiff has not paid the rent from 1.1.1971.
(2.) AGGRIEVED by the said judgment, tenant filed revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1837, which was registered as S.C.C. Revision No. 122 of 1979. The Revisional Court after appreciation of the evidence which had been considered by the Trial Court recorded a finding that there was no default and accordingly, allowed the revision and dismissed the suit for ejectment. It, however, confirmed the decree for arrears of rent, vide judgment dated 22.9.1984. The finding recorded by the District Judge was that the default was of less than 4 months and, therefore, plaintiff/petitioner was not entitled to decree of ejectment. Aggrieved by the said judgment present writ petition has been filed. I have heard Sri S.N. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner. The case has been taken in the revised No one is present to argue the case on behalf of the respondent.
(3.) IT has been stated by learned Counsel for the petitioner that Sri S.C. Srivastava, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 3 has made a statement that he has no instruction in the matter.;