Prakash Krishna, J. - (1.) THE present writ petition arises out of S.C.C. Suit No. 23 of 1984 instituted by the present petitioner claiming himself as the landlord of the premises as described at the foot of the plaint of which the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were the tenants for ejectment etc. It was pleaded that the tenancy of the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 herein, who were defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in the suit, has been determined by the notice dated 11.6.1984 which was served on 14.6.1984 but they failed to pay arrears of rent. The suit was contested on the pleas inter alia that since the defendant No. 3 is in occupation without allotment order, therefore, suit is not maintainable before the Judge Small Causes Court. The suit was decreed by the judgment dated 18.4.1987 for the recovery of arrears of rent and damages amounting to Rs. 1,980/ - and for damages @ of Rs. 170/ - p.m. and also for eviction. The said judgment has been set aside in S.C.C. Revision No. 48 of 1987 by the IInd Additional District Judge, Etawah by the impugned order dated 9.11.1987. Feeling aggrieved, the landlord has filed this present writ petition. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) NONE appeared on behalf of the contesting respondents in spite of service. The respondent No. 3 has expired and his heirs have been ordered to be substituted. The only contention made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the finding of the Revisional Court holding that the suit is not maintainable as the premises was let out, without there being an allotment order, is legally incorrect.
(3.) THE controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by a judgment of Apex Court in the case of Nootan Kumar and others v. IInd Additional District Judge, JT 2000 (7) SC 481, wherein it has been held that such suit for eviction and ejectment is maintainable. In view of the above, ruling of the Apex Court, the only logical conclusion is that the suit giving rise to the present writ petition was maintainable and, therefore, the judgment and decree of the Court below cannot be sustained.;