Chandra Prakash, J. - (1.) THIS is an application :in revision against the order dated 8-4-1974 of Shri K. K. Birla, District Judge, Agra, dismissing the applicant's revision after confirming the order of the trial court.
(2.) THE facts leading to this application in revision are not disputed and may be narrated as follows. THE applicant moved an application under Section 11 of the U. P. Cantonments (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1952, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the opposite party on the allegation that the opposite party was a tenant of the applicant under an allotment order and that more than three months' rent amounting to Rs. 444/- had fallen into arrears. This application under Section 11 of the Act was presented on 24-3-1971. Notice was issued to the opposite party for 31-7-1971. On 31-7-1971 the opposite party did not appear. THE service of notice on him was held to be sufficient. THE case was, however, adjourned to 8-10-1971 for disposal. It appears that the case was not taken on that date and it was adjourned to 7-1-1972. On 7-1-1972 also nobody appeared from the side of the opposite party and the trial court passed an order of eviction under Section 12 of the Act and communicated it to the District Magistrate. On 24-12-1972 the opposite party was evicted. Within a month of the eviction, that is, on January 8, 1973, the opposite party moved an application for setting aside the ex parte order passed against him on the ground that he had not been properly served. This application was moved by the opposite party under Order IX, rule 13, CPG and Section 151, CPC. This application of the opposite party was allowed on 20-10-1973 and the exparte order evicting him was set aside. On December 8, 1973 the opposite party filed an objection under Section 11 of the Act alleging that he was not a tenant of the applicant, nor were the premises in dispute allotted to him under the Act. The trial court after hearing the parties and taking evidence came to the conclusion that the premises in dispute were not allotted to the opposite party and as such he was not a tenant contemplated by Section 11 of the Act. Accordingly the application under Section 11 of the Act against the opposite party was dismissed.
(3.) AGAINST the above order the applicant filed a revision in the Court below and the learned District Judge after hearing the parties dismissed that revision. Against the above order the applicant landlord has come up in revision berore me.;