Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Pramod Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri V.S. Chaudhary appearing for the contesting respondent though present has made a statement that for want of instruction from the respondent he is not in a position to argue the matter.
(2.) THE dispute relates to house No. 112 (old No. 366/1), Khair Nagar, Meerut city which was in the tenancy of the contesting respondent No. 3. The petitioner filed a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent against tenant/respondent which was registered as S.C.C. Suit No. 68 of 1988. The plea of sub -letting was also taken. The Judge, Small Causes Court vide order dated 25.4.1990 decreed the suit of the petitioner holding that rate of rent was Rs. 65/ - per month and the tenant -respondent was in arrears. However, the issue with regard to sub -letting and damage caused to the building was decided against the landlord -petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent -tenant preferred a revision which was allowed vide judgment dated 17.8.1991 and the case was remanded back to the Trial Court for adjudication with liberty to both the parties to lead evidence on the issue with regard to rate of rent and default.
(3.) AFTER remand the Judge, Small Causes Court again decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide order dated 15.2.1993. Issue No. 2 was framed by the Trial Court with regard to the rate of rent and issue No. 3 was whether the tenant is defaulter. The Trial Court vide judgment dated 15.2.1993 held that rate of rent was Rs. 40/ - and not Rs. 65/ - as alleged by the petitioner and decided the issue No. 2 accordingly. However, with regard to issue No. 3 the Trial Court found that tenant -respondent has failed to prove that he was not in arrears of rent and held that he was in arrears of more than four months of rent on the date of notice and accordingly, decreed the suit for eviction. Against the judgment of the Trial Court two revisions were preferred. The landlord -petitioner preferred a revision against the findings recorded on issue No. 2 with regard to rate of rent. The tenant -respondent also filed a revision challenging the finding on issue No. 3. The Revisional Court vide impugned judgment dated 8.12.1993 allowed the revision field by the tenant -respondent while the revision filed by the landlord -petitioner was dismissed.;