SHISHIR KUMAR,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri A.K.Goyal learned counsel for petitioner.
(2.) IN spite of repeated calls nobody appears for the respondents. The matter is listed in the heading of 'Old cases'. therefore it is being decided finally. This writ petition has been filed by the landlord for quashing the order dated 14.5.1996 passed by revisional court by which the respondents revision has been allowed.
(3.) IT appears that the petitioner filed a suit for ejectment , arrears of rent against the respondents, after serving a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The suit was decreed ex parte on 6.11.1986. The said ex parte decree on an application made by the respondents was set aside on 13.2.1987 and it was restored and the date was fixed as 13th March 1987. The respondent tenant inspite of the aforesaid fact has not complied with the provisions of Section 20 sub clause (4) and the amount was actually deposited on 6th July 1987. In such circumstance the Prescribed authority after holding a detailed discussion has recorded a finding that the respondent tenant is not entitled to get the benefit of Section 20 sub clause (4) being the fact that it is not a normal issue in which after receiving of the summons the first date of hearing will be when the court applied his mind. Admittedly, the court applied its mind while setting aside the ex parte order on 23.3.1987. In such circumstance the Judge Small Causes Court vide his judgement and order was pleased to decree the suit for ejectment and arrears of rent but the revisional court without considering this issue only on the basis of the judgements which considers the first date of hearing when the court applied his mind and has allowed the revision and set aside the order passed by the Judge Small Causes Court hence the present writ petition.;