- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. S. C. C Suit No. 32 of 1992 filed by landlord/respondent against tenant/petitioner was decreed ex- parte by J. S. C. C. , Varanasi through judgment and decree dated 1-2-1994. Through the said judgment and decree the suit was decreed for eviction as well as for recovery of Rs. 10,800 as arrears of rent. Against the said judgment and decree a time barred revision was filed by tenant/petitioner being Civil Revision No. 306 of 1995 which was accompanied by an application under Section 5 Limitation Act for condonation of delay. VI Addl. District Judge, Varanasi through judgment and order dated 21-12-1998 rejected the application for condonation of delay and dismissed the revision as barred by time, hence this writ petition.
(2.) MEANWHILE petitioner/tenant also filed restoration application which was rejected for non-compliance of provision of Section 17 of P. S. C. C. Act and that matter has become final. In my opinion, the revisional Court adopted a very strict approach in considering the question of condonation of delay. Revisional Court in the impugned order has mentioned that applicant could not explain as to what he did on each particular date. The exact words are, "it is not clear from the affidavit of the revisionist as to where and when he had gone in between 16-5- 1995 to 26-6-1995 and who were the person he met during that period and that on what date he met police station Head Officer. " In my opinion while considering the delay condonation application such a strict approach is not warranted.
(3.) I, therefore, hold that petitioner had shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay. However, petitioner even though a tenant has not paid nay rent since about 1984. However, suit had been decreed for the rent for the period starting from August, 1988.;