- (1.) YATINDRA Singh, J. Sri Pyare Kishan (the contesting respondent) is the landlord of the shop in question. He filed a JSCC Suit No. 330 of 1994 for eviction of the petitioner. This suit was dismissed on 13-9-1977. The contesting respondent filed a revision, which was allowed, by the revisional Court on 21-4-1998 and the matter was remanded back for re-decision in accordance with law. The petitioner thereafter filed an application to review the order dated 21-4-1978. This review application was also dismissed on 7-9-1978. Thereafter the petitioner filed a revision before this Court. This was also dismissed on 23-7-1979. The matter was taken up by the trial Court, who by its order dated 28-7-1998 struck off the defence of the petitioner under Order XV of the Rule 5 of Civil Procedure Code (the C. P. C ). The "petitioner filed a revision against the same, which was also dismissed on 19-8-1980. Hence, the present writ petition.
(2.) THE petitioner has sought relief for quashing of four orders. THE three orders dated 3-12-1981, 24-4- 1978, 7-9-1978 are passed by the revisional Court and one order dated 20-7-1981 has been passed by the trial Court. So far as the order dated 21-4-1978 and the order dated 7-9-1978 are concerned, the petitioner had filed a revision against the same, which was dismissed by this. Court on 23-7-1979. THE petitioner has not filed any copy of the judg ment to show if he was granted any liberty to challenge the same. THE petitioner is not entitled to any relief for quashing of the orders dated 21-4-1978 and 7-9- 1978. The petitioner has further sought quashing of the order dated 20-7-1981 passed by the trial Court and the order dated 3-12-1981 of the revisional Court dismissing the revision against the same. By these orders the Court below have struck off the defence of the petitioner and while striking off the defence of the petitioner, the Courts below have not con sidered the amount deposited under Sec tion 30 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent an Eviction) Act, 1972 (the Act ). This is not correct. Apart from it, the petitioner in para-19 of the writ petition has stated that petitioner is depositing the rent regularly and has not committed any default. Though para-19 has been denied in para-12 of the counter affidavit but there is no specific denial of the fact that petitioner is depositing the rent regularly. In view of the same the order dated 20-7-1981 and 3-12-1981 strik ing off the defence of the petitioner are quashed. The parties will appear before the trial Court on 29-11-1999 and as the suit is very old one, the trial Court will decide the case expeditiously at an early date. With these direction the writ petition is disposed off. Petition disposed off .;