- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Present petition arises out of a S. C. C. suit and is directed against the judgments and orders passed by trial Court and revisional Court, decreeing the suit and dismissing the revision and He review application filed by the petitioner. Petitioner by means of the present petition prays for issuance of writ, order or direction in the nature of cer-tiorari quashing the said judgments and orders dated 15-1-92, 20-1-1996 and 27-4-1996.
(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to the present petition are that respondent No. 3 filed S. C. C. suit No. 575 of 1986 in the Court of Judge Small Causes Court, Agra for ejectment of the petitioner from the house No. 25/162-A, Patel Nagar, Jiwani Mandi, Agra and recovery of arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 60 per month, amounting to Rs. 1100. Suit was filed with the allegations that the petitioner-tenant was in arrears of rent since 1-9-85. A notice of demand and ter mination of tenancy dated 13-6-86 was served upon the petitioner on 14-6-86 per sonally. Petitioner gave the reply of the said notice with wrong allegations and did not pay the rent, nor vacated the house in question, therefore, said suit was filed by respondent No. 3 on 21-10-86 for the above mentioned reliefs. After service of the summons, petitioner appeared before the Court and instead of filing written statement took innumerable adjournments, which were granted to him on payment of costs, which were not paid by him. On 13-1-1992, plain tiff-respondent No. 3, alongwith his Coun sel was present; but defendant-petitioner was absent. Trial Court, therefore, fixed 15-1-92 to proceed ex pane. It was also directed that if the costs were not paid by the said date, suit shall be decreed exparte. On 15-1-95 again, defendant remained ab sent and only an application was filed for adjournment of the case. The said applica tion was rejected by the trial Court and the suit was decreed with costs under Order VIII, Rule 10, C. P. C. Petitioner instead of filing an ap plication under Order IX, Rule 13 C. P. C. for setting aside the exparte decree, filed a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, before the revisional Court. The revisional Court held that inspite of the service of the sum mons, no written statement was filed by the defendant as he simply wanted to delay the disposal of the suit, several adjournments applications, were filed and same were allowed on payment of costs; but even the costs were not paid and that the petitioner was guilty of abuse of process of Court. The revisional Court did not find any illegality in the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and dismissed the revision by its judgment and order dated 30-1-96. There after petitioner filed a review application before the revisional Court, which was also dismissed by the said Court on 27-4-96. Petitioner, as stated above, thereafter, filed the present petition and prayed for the above mentioned reliefs.
(3.) 1 have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that petitioner was not afforded op portunity of being heard and judgments and orders passed by the Courts below were in violation of the principles of natural justice and further that no evidence whatsoever was led by the plain tiff to prove his case and the suit was ar bitrarily decreed. Revision as well as the review application were also dismissed by the Court below wholly arbitrarily, there fore, the judgments and orders passed by the Courts below were liable to be set aside.;