R.S. Dhavan, J. - (1.) THE issues in the present writ petition have been a graceful solution largely upon the circumstances that counsel on both sides were willing to find a solution. The petitioner Mrs. Meera Khanna is a widow. Her husband was a Colonel with the Indian Army. After her husband's death she received employment, as a Kitchen Incharge at a school in Dehradun known as Cambrian Halt. The school is run by the Cambrian Hall Educational Trust. Her salary was Rs. 400/ - per month and she received certain amenities like residence, concessional electricity, a furnished accommodation and certain other basic amenities. She moved into this accommodation with her three children. Apparently all was not well between the school as an employer and the petitioner as an employee; The petitioner was served with a notice intimating her that the school does not intend to retain her as an employee. She received the notice dated December 16, 1983 terminating her services with effect from the next day. This notice mentions, in effect, that her period of probation was virtually not being extended. She was required to vacate the accommodation she occupied by January 2, 1984. It appears that the petitioner did not vacate the accommodation and thus she received a notice served on her on May 11, 1984 requiring her to deliver vacant possession of the accommodation upon the expiry of 30 days. She had been required to pay certain arrears amounting to Rs. 111.36 and thereafter mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 300/ - per month.
(2.) THE petitioner did not vacate the accommodation and this led the management of the school i.e. Cambrian Hall Educational Trust to file a suit before the Judge, Small Causes, seeking a decree of eviction and for consequential reliefs in the nature of mesne profits and arrears which the plaint alleged, were due. The petitioner answered the plaint by a written statement. But, when the matter was taken up for hearing by the Judge, Small, Causes i.e. 2nd Additional Civil Judge, Dehradun, neither she nor her counsel appeared to contest the suit. The trial court examined the matter on merits. In brief, merits of the decision of the trial court was that regard being had to the fact that the petitioner received a salary of Rs. 400/ - and the amenities provided in monetary terms could be worth Rs. 400/ - per month, the figure of rent was arrived at on the basis of 12% of the salary and the quantum of the amenities in terms of money. The trial court thought that it would be appropriate to fix rent at the rate of 12% on Rs. 800/ -, Rs. 400/ - as rent and Rs. 400/ - as an approximated value of the amenities. This would be Rs. 96/ - Thus, the figure of Rs. 100/ - was arrived at as damages payable by the petitioner. The arrears of amenities utilised and as mentioned in paragraph 5 of the plaint Rs. 111.36 was accepted by the trial court. This is the consumption of electricity of specific units.
(3.) AGAINST an ex parte decision of the trial court the petitioner sought a revision before the District Judge, Dehradun being Small Cause Court Revision No. 22 of 1985. The learned District Judge declined to interfere with the judgment of trial court by repelling the plea of the petitioner that being an arrear to decision it was not a good order. Learned District Judge observed that the trial court's decision was ex parte, did not imply that the judgment was bad. Learned District Judge dismissed the revision implying thereby that the order of the trial court stood.;