K.C. Agarwal, J. - (1.) This is a defendant's revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgments of the Second Additional District Judge passed under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act and that of the Judge, Small Causes Courts, Varanasi dated 12-7-1973.
(2.) It appears that the plaintiff-opposite party filed a suit for eviction of the applicant on two grounds. These grounds were that the defendant-applicant had not paid the rent within a period of one month of receipt of notice of demand and, therefore, she was a defaulter and that as the defendant-applicant had sub-let the premises to the defendant-opposite parties Nos. 3 to 5, she was guilty of having sub-let the premises without the consent of the landlord. The suit was contested by the applicants. She filed a written statement disputing that she was a defaulter. She asserted that the rent was taken by her to the opposite party but that was not accepted. Hence she could not be treated as the defaulter. She also denied that she had sub let the premises or any portion thereof to the opposite parties 2 to 5.
(3.) The suit was filed on 6th August, 1968. It however, appears that it was pending on the 15th July, 1972 when the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 came into force. As a result of the enforcement of Act No. 19 of 72 the suit stood transferred to Court of the Judge, Small Causes on 18th December, 1972. The case was thereafter adjourned and was taken up on 12th July, 1973. On that date the plaintiff brought to the notice of the Court that as the defendant- applicant had not complied with the provisions of Order 15 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the written statement filed by her was liable to be struck off. The Court accepted the request of the plaintiff and directed for the striking of of the defence on 12th July, 1973. The suit was finally dismissed by the Judge, Small Causes on the same day with the finding that the notice terminating the tenancy of the defendant-applicant had not been given by a person authorised by trustees. Dissatisfied, the plaintiff filed a revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. The revision has been allowed by the impugned judgment dated 23-3-1974. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant-applicant has come to this Court by means of the present revision.;