Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) IN spite of several orders passed by this Court for expeditious disposal of revision (S.C.C. Revision No. 58 of 1994) learned District Judge, Moradabad passed two orders one on 9.7.2007 and another on 25.7.2007, recording that the learned Counsel for the landlord -petitioner (who is respondent in the revision) was present but the learned Counsel for the tenant revisionist was not present. However, instead of dismissing the revision in default the revision was adjourned for two weeks on the first occasion and for one month on the second occasion with the specific direction that the stay order shall continue till the next date. The Court is finding some difficulty in understanding this extra -ordinary latitude being granted to the tenant. In spite of 3 or 4 orders already passed by this Court for expeditious disposal of the revision. The argument of the learned Counsel for the landlord -petitioner is that the tenant is a leading Advocate of Moradabad where the case is pending. This throws sufficient light on the state of affairs. However, the District Judge is supposed to be above such considerations and do justice to both the parties. It is hoped that no further delay will be caused in disposal of the revision. The property in dispute is stated to be a house consisting of 2 rooms and other amenities situate in Moradabad, the rent of which is Rs. 4/ - per month. The Court wonders whether to lament or laugh at this rent. Revision is pending since 1994. Decree for eviction was passed in 1994. Accordingly it is directed that until decision of revision revisionist -tenant -respondent shall not be dispossessed from the property in dispute provided that with effect from September, 2007 onwards he deposits before the Revisional Court for immediate payment to the landlord -petitioner (respondent in the revision) by the 7th of each succeeding month rent @ Rs. 1500/ - per month. However, the rent for September, 2007 may be deposited by 7.11.2007. This direction is being issued in view of Supreme Court judgment in Atma Ram Properties v. Federal Motors : 2005 (58) ALR 650 (SC) : 2005 (26) AIC 84. Photostat copy of the certified copy of this order shall be supplied to the learned Counsel for the tenant on the next date fixed in the revision before the Revisional Court. Petitioner shall file certified copy as well as photostat copy of this order before the Revisional Court so that the photostat copy may be supplied by the Revisional Court to the learned Counsel for the revisionist -tenant. If on any date fixed either of the parties do not appear then the case shall not be adjourned. If the revisionist, does not appear then the revision shall be dismissed in default and in case the landlord does not appear then the Revision should be heard and decided ex -parte in accordance with law It is further directed that in case revision is dismissed in default and thereafter restoration application is filed, even then the dispossession of the tenant shall remain stayed during the pendency of restoration application or during the pendency of revision after restoration application is allowed on the same condition of deposit of Rs. 1500/ - per month before Revisional Court for immediate payment to the landlord: - -
(2.) IT is hoped that the learned District Judge will not give fresh cause to this Court to inquire further in to the matter. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.;