Rajesh Dayal Khare, J. - (1.) List revised. Learned counsel for the petitioner is present. However, Sri Deep Chand Singh and M.K.Nigam, learned counsel for the private respondent are not present.
(2.) Perusal of the order dated 04.02.2015 shows that even in the revised reading of the list, learned counsel for the private respondent were not present. The order passed on 04.02.2015 is quoted below:- "List revised. Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner is present. However, neither Sri Deep Chand Singh nor Sri M.K. Nigam, learned counsel for the private respondent is present. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that an application dated 03.08.2008 being Civil Misc. Application No. 181488 of 2008 and has drawn attention of this Court to para 3 of the affidavit accompanying the said application and has argued that the accommodation in dispute has fallen down on account of natural calamity and no premises exists on the plot in question. In the aforesaid regard, learned counsel has filed photograph to authenticate the same. However, learned counsel for the private respondent is not present even in the revised reading of the list. Accordingly, list in the next cause list peremptorily."
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner-landlord states that the petitioner-landlord filed a suit no. 247 of 1997 for demolition of the illegal construction raised by the tenant-respondent in shop situated at Azad Nagar, Uttari Barahah, Tappa Raipura, Pargana Salemnpur Majhauli, District Deoria which was on a monthly rent of Rs. 200/- against which written statement was filed by the tenant-respondent. Learned counsel for the landlord-petitioner further contends that the tenant-respondent did not pay the monthly rent since 01.02.1995 inspite of repeated demands on account of which legal notice dated 09.09.1997 was sent to the respondent-tenant by registered post which was duly received by the respondent-tenant. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the tenant-respondent did not deposit the rent to the petitioner and has also failed to prove that the amount of rent was deposited under Section 30 of the U.P. Act No.XIII of 1972 or under Order 15, Rule 15 C.P.C. prior to filing of the suit or when the said notice was received by the respondent-tenant and the learned trial Court decreed the suit vide Judgement and order dated 26.03.2008 against which the respondent-tenant filed Small Causes Revision No. 4 of 2003 which has been illegally allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner-landlord has drawn attention of this Court to paragraph no.8 of rejoinder affidavit wherein, it has been stated that the shop occupied by the respondent-tenant was demolished by the act of God and the respondent-tenant is doing business from other shop, therefore the dispute with regard to shop in question is no longer in existence. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioner that the revisional Court has passed the order on the assertion made only in the written statement that t he suit was instituted for restraining the construction made by the respondent-tenant and there was no averments with regard to the default in payment of rent, therefore there is no default as such the order passed by the revisional Court is bad in law.;