- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. Inspite of sufficient service as held by order dated 7. 11. 1998, no one has appeared on behalf of the contesting respondent No. 2.
(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner. Landlord-respondent No. 2 filed SCC Suit No. 155 of 1998 against ten ant-petitioner for his eviction on the ground of default and for recovery of rent. Rate of rent of the tenanted property in dispute is Rs. 15. 62/- per month. In the plaint, it was stated that rent from May, 1983 till June, 1985 had not been paid. It was prayed that arrears of rent till the date of filing of the suit amounting to Rs. 437. 25/- might be directed to be paid by the tenant-defendant and he should also be directed to pay rent/damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 15. 62/- during pendency of the suit and till his actual eviction. Suit was decreed ex parte on 14. 12. 1988. In execution of ex parte decree, tenant was dis possessed on 13. 12. 1994. Thereafter on 16. 12. 1994, tenant-petitioner filed restoration application. In compliance of section 17 of Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, tenant alongwith restoration application deposited Rs. 440/- as decretal amount. The restoration application was registered as Misc. Case No. 132 of 1994, J. S. C. C. , Gorakhpur allowed the restoration application through order dated 7. 1. 1995 and set aside ex parte decree dated 14. 12. 1988. Against the said order, landlord-respondent No. 2 filed Civil Revision No. 38 of 1995. Revision was allowed by Vth ADJ, Gorakhpur through judgment and order dated 30. 3. 1988, order of the Trial Court was set aside and restoration applica tion for tenant-petitioner was dismissed for non-compliance of provisions of sec tion 17 of PSCC Act. The said order dated 30. 3. 1998 passed by Lower Revisional Court has been challenged through this writ petition. Revisional Court held that as pendent lite and future rent/damages for use and occupation had also been decreed through the ex parte decree, hence decretal amount included the said amount also. Revisional Court held that rent/damages for use and occupation since the of filing of the suit i. e. , July, 1985 till 13. 12. 1994 when petitioner was dispossessed should also have been de posited as they constituted decretal amount. (The period comes to about nine and half years ).
(3.) IN my opinion, the view taken by Lower Appellate Court is absolutely correct. Decretal amount includes pendent lite and future damages/rent also. The Supreme Court in Kedarnath v. Mohan Lal Kesarwani and oThers 2002 (1) ARC 186= AIR 2002 SC 582 has held that provisions of section 17 of PSCC Act are mandatory. Accordingly, There is no merit in this writ petition. Hence it is dismissed. Writ Petition Dismissed. .;