D.N. Jha, J. - (1.) Petitioner Indra Narain has filed this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying for quashing of the order and decree passed by the Addl. Judge Small Cause Court Lucknow dated 22-1-1974 and same relief has been sought against the order passed by IVth Addl. District & Sessions Judge Lucknow dated 26-8-1974. These orders are Annexures 3 and 4 respectively to the writ petition.
(2.) In brief, the facts are that opposite party No. 3 Sita Ram Tewari filed a suit in the court of Munsif North Lucknow on 22-9-1971 for arrears of rent and damages and mesne profits. On coming into force of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the case was transferred to the court of Judge Small Cause Court Lucknow and subsequently to the court of Addl. Judge Small Cause Court Lucknow, opposite party No. 2. After a frantic effort of publication of the notice, service was effected on the petitioner, who appeared on 9-7-1973 and moved an application praying for permission to file written statement and supply of copy of the plaint along with a prayer to provide him one month's time to avail of the opportunity of Section 39 of the Act, by depositing the rent etc. The prayer was allowed and case was listed for filing of written statement on 9-8-1973 and final hearing was fixed for 11-9-1973. The written statement was not filed on the due date and since on the date of final hearing the Presiding Officer was not present, the case was adjourned to 26-11-1973. The petitioner on that date filed his written statement and filed several applications. The record of proceedings of 26-11-1973 is Annexure C-1 to the counter-affidavit. The statement of the landlord was recorded and the case was adjourned to 27-11-1973 for the statement of the petitioner and his witnesses. In the meantime there was a stay from the revisional court and hence the case could not proceed and ultimately it came up for hearing on 14-1-1974. The Presiding Officer fixed the case for recording of the evidence of the petitioner and his witnesses on 21-1-1974. On that date an application was moved on behalf of the opposite party No. 3 for striking off the defence of the petitioner for non-compliance of Rule 5 Order 15 C. P. C. On this it appears that, the court framed Issue No. 8 to the effect "whether the defendant has made compliance of O. 15 R. 5 C. P. C. If so, its effect on either side."
(3.) It appears that the Addl. Judge Small Cause Court Lucknow after rejecting certain applications, moved by the petitioner for examination of his witnesses on commission, proceeded to decide the case. He heard the parties with respect to Issue No. 8 and after recording a finding that even the admitted rent had not been deposited by the petitioner, decided the issue against the petitioner. He also recorded a finding that the service of 'notice was proved and it was valid, He, however, did not record any finding on issues Nos. 3, 4, 5 & 6 and thereafter decreed the suit vide order dated 22-1-1974 This order is Annexure-4.;