Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Rajiv Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner. This is a tenant's petition challenging the orders dated 24.3.2006 and 30.5.2006 passed by respondent No. 1, The facts are that during pendency of the J.S.C.C. suit filed by respondent -landlord seeking ejectment of the tenant -petitioner, an application dated 17.1.2006 was moved on behalf of the tenant -petitioner with a prayer to direct the landlord to supply photocopy of the alleged diary in which details of the rent paid by him was maintained as alleged in paragraph 2 of the plaint. The said application was rejected by respondent No. 1 vide order dated 17.1.2006 on the finding that no such allegation has been made in the plaint that any diary or register was maintained by the landlord -respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner moved another application seeking adjournment and further time to file written statement. The said application was dismissed vide order dated 30.5.2006 on the ground that the tenant -petitioner was allowed opportunity a number of times to file written statement but in order to delay the proceedings, deliberately the same has not been filed. The aforesaid two orders have been challenged by the petitioner by filing the instant writ petition.
(2.) IN so far as order dated 24.3.2006 is concerned I have perused paragraph 2 of the plaint which has been filed as Annexure -3 to the writ petition. There is no averment in paragraph 2 that any diary was being maintained by the landlord -respondent. On the contrary, the allegation is that such a diary was maintained by the tenant -petitioner himself. In view of the aforesaid, respondent No. 1 rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner on the finding that no such allegation has been made in the plaint.
(3.) IN so far as the order dated 30.5.2006 is concerned, it is no doubt correct that tenant -petitioner has not filed written statement and it appears that sole intention for not filing the written statement is to delay the proceedings. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has tried to justify the action by stating that the petitioner was ill and was undergoing treatment in the district hospital and as such, the written statement could not be filed.;