E. P. Singh, J. - (1.) THIS is a tenant's writ petition arising out of a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment due to default in payment of rent.
(2.) SHORN of unnecessary details 2-1-1981 was the date mentioned in the summons. On that day an application was moved on behalf of the defendant-tenant petitioner for adjournment of the case on the ground that his counsel could not prepare the case. The case was adjourned to 20-2-1981. It appears that on 13-1-1981 the defendant-petitioner applied for deposit of the entire amount of rent due with costs of the suit etc. and the same was deposited by the permission of the court. Thereafter the defendant-petitioner for dismissal of the suit for ejectment. The plaintiffs-contesting opposite parties had contested the claim of the defendant-petitioner on the allegation that the deposit of rent was not made on the first date of hearing which was 2-1-1981 in the circumstances of the present case, hence the application of the defendant-petitioner should be dismissed. The Civil Judge through his judgment dated 21-10-81 accepted the claim of the defendant-petitioner and refuted the contentions raised on behalf of the plaintiff-opposite parties to the effect that the defence of the defendant-petitioner should be struck off (see Annexure '1' attached with writ petition).
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the judgment of the Trial court the plaintiffs- opposite parties preferred a revision petition which has been allowed by the revisional court through its judgment dated 29-5-1982 contained in Annexure '3' attached with the writ petition. The revisional court has observed in the impugned judgment that the deposit by the defendant-petitioner was not made on the first day of hearing in the circumstances of the present case, hence the Trial court acted illegally in dismissing the plaintiffs' suit for ejectment. It has also observed that in the circumstances of the present case the Trial court wrongly condoned the laches on the part of the defendant-petitioner in making deposits. The relevant extract in para. 8 of the impugned judgment reads as below :- ".........In the circumstances there was no reason for not making the deposit by 7th May, 1981. The learned court below had no jurisdiction to extend the time for making the payment and that way, his order for condoning the delay in making deposit- during the strike of advocates as sufficient cause is not in accordance with law and is liable to be set a side." Aggrieved by the judgment of the revisional court the defendant-petitioner has approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution.;