- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. In this case argument on restoration application as well as writ petition were heard on 16-1-2004 and judgment was reserved.
(2.) CAUSE shown is sufficient. The order dated 9-7-2003, dismissing the writ petition in default is set aside. The plaintiff respondent No. 1 Lala Gopal Das filed a suit giving rise to the instant writ petition in the form of SCC Suit No. 16 of 1988 against respondent No. 2 Yogesh Kumar as defendant No. 1 and petitioner Sardar Sewa Singh as defendant No. 2. It was asserted in the plaint that the shop had been sub-let by defendant No. 1 to defendant No. 2. Ground of default was also taken in the plaint. Notice was given only to defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 2 petitioner pleaded that he was the tenant of the shop in dispute at the rate of Rs. 100 per month. JSCC/iii Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Mathura, dismissed the suit through the judgment and decree dated 9-2-1999, by holding that the petitioner defendant No. 2 was the tenant of the plaintiff and that defendant No. 1 was not the tenant hence, there was no question of sub-letting of the shop by defendant No. 1 to defendant No. 2. The plaintiff respondent filed a revision against the said judgment and decree being Civil Revision No. 97 of 99. Additional District Judge, Court No. 9, Mathura, through judgment and order dated 3-12-2002, allowed the revision, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court dated 9-2-1999 and remanded the matter to the trial Court to decide the suit again in accordance with the direction given in the said judgment. This writ petition is directed the said judgment of the revisional Court. The revisional Court took a very strange view. It held that as defendant No. 1 neither filed written statement nor appeared in the suit, hence allegations of the plaintiff against him stood proved. Revisional Court went to the extent of holding that there was no need for the trial Court to discuss the evidence and trial Court have not decided whether the plaintiff was able to prove the tenancy in between him and defendant No. 1 and that if there was any deficiency in the evidence adduced by the plaintiff against defendant No. 1, then the same should have been ignored due to the absence of written statement by defendant No. 1, and in the absence of written statement, allegations of plaintiff should have been taken to be unrebutted.
(3.) IF a defendant does not file written statement then decree may be passed against him. However, no such finding can be given or decree may be passed which directly and substantially affects the rights of other defendants who have appeared and filed written statement. IF the view taken by the revisional Court is taken to be correct then any tenant can be ejected without any fault on his part by showing him to be sub-tenant of close friend of plaintiff. Such close friend may either remain ex parte or may support the case of the plaintiff. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Judgment and order passed by revisional Court is set aside and the matter is remanded to the revisional Court to decide the revision afresh. The revisional Court is directed to decide the revision within the parameters of Section 25 of PSCC Act. It is clarified that absolutely no adverse inference against the petitioner/defendant No. 2 must be drawn due to non-filing of written statement by defendant No. 1. Revisional Court must only decide as to whether findings of the trial Court regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant in between the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 are liable to be interfered with under Section 25 of PSCC Act or not. Petition allowed. .;