SHISHIR KUMAR,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Avinash Chandra Srivastava, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders dated 11.8.2009 and 22.1.2007 passed by the courts below, Annexures-8 and 7 to the writ petition. Respondent being a landlord filed a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment in the year 1994. Various issues were framed and the trial court dismissed the suit. A revision was preferred and by order dated 18.5.2004, the revision was allowed and the matter was remanded back. The Judge Small Causes Court again framed various issues and dismissed the suit vide order dated 15.12.2004. Again a revision was preferred and the same was allowed and the matter was remanded back. The Judge Small Causes Court has framed five issues and decided the case against the petitioner -vide the judgment and order dated 22.1.2007. The petitioner aggrieved by the aforesaid order filed a revision. The revision too has been dismissed by the order impugned.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submits that the finding to this effect recorded by the court below that the petitioners have not deposited the rent under Section 20 (4) of the Act is not correct. As regards the finding that the notice was served upon the petitioners is also based on no evidence. A specific averment has been made by the petitioners before the Court that a statement of the postman has been obtained because the postman was having enmity with the petitioners due to the fact that he was not being tipped on festivals. A further submission has been made that the rent was deposited, therefore, it cannot be held that there was any default and the petitioners are not liable for ejectment. The revisional court has also not considered the said finding.;