Prakash Krishna, J. - (1.) The petitioner, claiming himself as landlord of the disputed premises (hereinafter to referred as plaintiff) instituted SCC Suit No. 201 of 1997: Nizamuddin v. Mohd Khalidtor recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages against the respondent No. 2 Mohd. Khalid on the pleas inter alia that he has purchased the disputed property from its erstwhile owner Mujib Ahmed and Sayeed Ahmed by means of registered sale deed dated 20th of September, 1975. The respondent No. 2, Mohd. Khalid (hereinafter to referred as the tenant) had executed the rent agreements in favour of Mujib Ahmed and Sayeed Ahmed and so the plaintiff has become the owner and landlord of the said premises of which the defendant was tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 15/-. The said tenant has failed to pay the arrears of rent in spite of notice of demand and termination of tenancy.
(2.) The Suit was contested by the tenant on the allegation that he was licensee of Mujib Ahmed and Sayeed Ahmed, the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff is fictitious document and at the time of license only a Khandhar without any roof structure was given to him on license and as such the provisions of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable and the notice is bad. The suit was decreed by the trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 18th of January, 1985 on the finding that the plaintiff has validly acquired title and landlordship under the registered sale deed dated 20th of September, 1975 and the tenant is liable for eviction as he has failed to pay the arrears of rent after the receipt of the notice. The decree of the trial Court has been set aside in SCC revision No. 10 of 1995 by the impugned judgment dated 24th of September, 1998 on the ground that as a complicated question of title is involved therefore the suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent is not maintainable.
(3.) A counter affidavit was filed through Shri Ravi Kiran Jain and Shri R.B.D. Misra, advocates. During the pendency of the writ petition Shri R.B.D. Misra, advocate, expired and notice to engage another Counsel was issued to the tenant vide order dated 29th of August, 2006, fixing 4th of October, 2006. Neither acknowledgement nor undelivered cover was received back and no one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents as per the office report dated 8th of February, 2007. The case was taken up on 26th of February, 2007 and it was ordered that written information about the case may be given to the other Counsel for the respondent of the next date. Shri Swetash Agrawal, advocate appeared on 27th of February, 2007 and sought adjournment. The case was adjourned on that date and it was further adjourned on 8th of March, 2007. When the case was taken up on 15th of March, 2007, none appeared on behalf of the respondent even in the revised list.;