- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) Present writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 21.1.2015 and 30.1.2015 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 4 Gorakhpur in Misc. Case No. 119 of 2015 with a further prayer to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to accept the security bond as per proforma annexed with the application under Sectin 17 of the Act and further to consider the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC being numbered as 8Ga and 11Ga in Misc. Case No. 119 of 2015.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is tenant of the shop situated at Agrawal Bhawan Ali Nagar, district Gorakhpur of which earlier his father was tenant in three shops. It is next contended that the petitioner has been depositing the rent under Section 30 of the Act of 1972 which rent stood paid till August 2014. It is argued that the respondent filed SCC Case No. 23 of 2013 on the ground of arrears of rent and the court proceeded ex parte against the petitioner and ex parte order dated 16.12.2014 was passed against the petitioner. It is further argued that thereafter the petitioner filed an Application under Section 17 read with Order IX Rule 13 CPC. It is further contended that by cryptic order, court below has directed the petitioner to deposit the entire decreetal amount in cash without applying judicial mind as per averment contained in the application and the security which had been tendered at the behest of the petitioner which was a vehicle value of which is Rs. four lacs and the liability of the petitioner is assessed was only Rs. seventy thousand. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before this Court the judgment of this Court reported in the matter of Shakeel Ahmad @ Munna versus Manoranjan Agrawal, 2015 1 ARC 56 and has relied on paragraph-17 and 18 thereof in support of his contention and has argued that in case there is substantial compliance within time as provided under Section 17 of the Act with regard to furnishing of security, the case has to be heard on merits.;