- (1.) This is tenant s petition, questioning the validity of order dated 02.03.1999 passed by Judge Small Causes Court in JSCC suit No. 1 of 1992, decreeing the suit for ejectment and the order dated 02.09.2003 passed by Additional District Judge, Moradabad, affirming the aforesaid order, in JSCC Revision No. 10 of 1999.
(2.) Brief background of the case is that JSCC suit No. 1 of 1992 was filed for arrears of rent and for ejectment. Said case was registered on 14.1.1992 and summons were issued for filing written statement/hearing. In the said suit petitioner-defendant after receipt of summons was present on 10.08.1992, and the suit was directed to be taken up on 09.11.1992 for hearing. On 26.04.1993, petitioner-defendant was absent and then order was passed against him to proceed ex parte for evidence on 12.08.1993. An application was moved by defendant for recalling the order dated 26.04.1993. On 09.03.1995 case was called out and the application was allowed with cost of Rs. 25/- and 13.04.1995 was fixed for hearing and written statement was to be filed within fifteen days. On 13.04.1995 was holiday, as such case was directed to be taken up on 15.04.1995. On 15.04.1995 counsels were on strike, as such next date fixed was 25.05.1995, which was adjourned to 03.08.1995. On 03.08.1995, Presiding officer was on leave; as such case was directed to be taken up on 25.08.1995. On the said date lawyers were on strike, as such next date fixed was 25.09.1995. On 25.09.1995 an application was moved by the landlord that the petitioner-defendant had neither filed written statement nor had deposited the amount of cost, as such request was made for proceeding the case ex parte against the petitioner defendant. Said application was directed to be taken up on 28.10.1995. On 28.10.1995, advocates were on strike and the matter was directed to be taken up on 17.11.1995. The petitioner-defendant moved an application for deposit of rent, said application had been allowed and on 17.11.1995 petitioner deposited the entire amount in question. Thereafter, both the Judge Small Causes Court as well as Revisional Court refused to extend the benefit as enumerated under Section 20 (4) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.
(3.) Sri Virendra Chaubey, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that fi5rst date of hearing in the fact of present case, would be 17.11.1995, as on the said date permission had been accorded to deposit the entire amount, and said amount had been deposited, as such benefit of Section 20 (4) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 was liable to be extended.;