Sudhir Narain, J. - (1.) - This writ petition is directed against the order dated 4.2.1995, passed by respondent No. 2, rejecting the application of the petitioner for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 27.2.1991 and the order dated 21.9.1995, passed by respondent No. 1, dismissing the revision against the aforesaid order.
(2.) The facts in brief are that respondent No. 3 filed suit No. 31 of 1989 against the petitioner for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages in the Court of Judge, Small Causes, Kanpur. It was alleged in the application that the plaintiff purchased the property in the year 1986. She constructed the shops and one of the newly constructed shops was let out to the petitioner at monthly rent of Rs. 200/- in October, 1988, her husband who was working in Air Force retired from service. He needs the shop in question. A notice dated 4.9.1989 was sent to the petitioner demanding arrears of rent for the period 1.10.1988 to 31.8.1989 but the petitioner did not comply with the notice. The petitioner filed the written statement in the case. In the suit, 13.12.1990 was the date fixed for hearing. The petitioner did not appear in the case and again 19.1.1991 was fixed for ex parte hearing. The petitioner again did not appear on the said date and the Court decreed the suit ex parte on 27.2.1991.
(3.) The petitioner moved an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code on 18.3.1991 to set aside the ex parte decree dated 27.2.1991. This application was dismissed in default on 30.7.1991; the petitioner preferred a revision against this order. The revision was allowed on 15.10.1991. Respondent No. 2 after hearing Counsel for both the parties rejected the application by order dated 4.2.1995 on the finding that there was no sufficient cause shown by the petitioner for appearance on 19.1.1991 and secondly, the petitioner did not deposit the required amount as contemplated under Section 17(1) of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner preferred a revision against this order. Respondent No. 1 has dismissed the revision by order dated 21.9.1995. The petitioner has challenged these orders in the present writ petition.;