- (1.) Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 filed a suit for ejectment of the petitioner from shop No. 246, Bara Bazar, Shikohabad and for recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits. The suit was filed on the ground of default in payment of rent inspite of a notice of demand and for causing substantial damage to the shop in question. The suit was tried by the Judge Small Cause Court. The trial Court held that no damage had been caused to the shop at the hands of the defendants. It was, however, held that the tenant committed default in payment of rent and was liable to eviction. A decree for Rs. 180 as rent mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 20 per month was also passed. The decree for ejectment was challenged by way of revision. The learned Additional District Judge affirmed the view of the trial Court that the defendant committed default in payment of arrears of rent inspite of valid notice of the landlords and was liable to eviction.
(2.) It is admitted that the petitioner has been a tenant of the disputed shop for over 25 years on a monthly rent of Rs. 20 Sri Rameshwar Dayal, father of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and husband of respondent No. 4 was landlord of the shop. He died in December, 1970 leaving the respondents as his heirs and rent from October, 1970 was due. A notice dated 24th April, 1974 signed by the three respondents was served on the petitioner 27th April, 1971 by registered post, alleging that the tenant had caused considerable damage to the shop and asking him to pay arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 120 within a month of the notice. The petitioner sent a reply dated 5th May, 1971 wherein he refuted the allegation that he caused damage to the shop in question. The petitioner further informed respondent Nos. 3 to 5 that he was remitting by money orders Rs. 40 to each them. The money orders were sent on the same day. Respondent Nos. 3 to 4 refused to accept the money and the money order addressed to respondent No. 5 was returned with the endorsement that she was not found at the address. The question for consideration on these admitted facts is whether the tenant committed default in payment of arrears of rent and was liable to ejectment.
(3.) Before dealing with the merits of the case, a preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents may be considered. It was urged that the petitioner had an alternative remedy to approach this Court by way of revision petition under Section 115 C.P.C. and in view of Article 226(3) of the Constitution, as it stands now, this petition is not maintainable. This provision came up for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court in Bijli Cotton Mills v. Estate Officer and others, Civil Misc. Writ 416 of 1977 and the question refered to the Full Bench was whether clause (3) of Article 226 of the Constitution will bar a petition under clause (1) of that Article in cases where the remedy by way of a suit or any other remedy is not effective or adequate to redress the injury complained of. After considering a large number of authorities on the point the Full Bench answered the question in the negative, while it is true that the petitioner could approach this Court under Section 115 C.P.C. but the scope of inquiry in the revision would have been confined to the question of jurisdiction of the Court below. The petitioner could get no redress from this Court even if it had been shown that the decree of the Court below was contrary to law inasmuch as it could not possibly be treated as a question of jurisdiction which alone could be looked into a revision petition under Section 115 C.P.C. Since the revision under Section 115 C.P.C. would not have been an effective or adequate remedy to redress the injury complained of the present petition is not barred under clause (3) of Article 226 of the Constitution.;