- (1.) A. K. Yog, J. Heard Sri Manish Nigam (holding brief of Sri Janardan Sahai, Advocate) on behalf of counsel for petitioners and Sri S. M. Dayal, Advocate, on behalf of contesting respondent No. 2.
(2.) S. C. C. Suit No. 1426 of 1978 (Yashoda Nandan v. Nand Ram) was filed before Judge, Small Causes Court, Kanpur claiming recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment of the defendant-respondent No. 2 from the premises (mentioned in the plaint) wherein said defendant respondent was a tenant at the rate of Rs. 19 per month. Undisputed facts of the case are that defendant-respondent No. 2 failed to make deposit on 15-2- 1979 (date men tioned in the summons) claimed to be the first date of hearing by the landlord- petitioners. A written statement is said to have been filed on 26th April 1979. The case was, however, adjourned on several occasions. Last date fixed being Septem ber 11, 1980 (as mentioned in paragraph 8 of the writ petition ). On September 11, 1980 plaintiff filed application under Order XV, Rule 5, Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called 'c. P. C. ') and prayed that the defence be struck off. Court granted time for filing objections, petitioners claim that no ob jection was filed by the defendant against the said application (paragraph 9 of the petition), respondent No. 2, however, in paragraph 9 of the Counter Affidavit. al leges that he had filed objections on 23rd September, 1980. A true copy of the said objections has been filed as Annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit.
(3.) A perusal of the said objections shows that cryptic and vague objections were taken; namely, application under Order XV, Rule 5, C. P. C. was misconceived and was on wrong facts and secondly the defendant had deposited rent up to December, 1980 in the Court. No details were given nor it was mentioned as to whether defendant denied first date of hearing being 15th February, 1979 (date mentioned in the summons ). A true copy of the order-sheet of Suit No. 1426 of 1978, while pending before the Judge, Small Causes Court has been filed as Annexure-1 to the petition. Perusal of the order-sheet shows that the application filed under Order XV, Rule 5, C. P. C. and the objections of the defendant were considered by the Judge, Small Causes Court and plaintiffs' application under Order XV, Rule 5, C. P. C. (Paper No. 25 Ga), praying for striking off defendant's defence was allowed and the defendant's objections against the same were rejected on the ground that the defendant has not been depositing rent regularly month by month as contemplated under Order XV, Rule 5, C. P. C. The said order further shows that defendant ( (respondent No. 2) sought adjournment on August 21,1981 and also subsequently on the ground that he in tended to file revision against the order of the trial Court passed on application under Order XV, Rule 5, C. P. C. It appears that no revision was filed although defen dant obtained Adjournments on this score on several occasions. The Judge, Small Causes Court finally heard the case and decreed the suit vide judgment and order dated February 25, 1982 (copy has been filed as Annexure 2 to the petition ).;