Allahabad High Court
Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 February, 2023
Bench: Salil Kumar Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2946 of 2023
Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kripa Shanker Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Udai Chandani
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Heard the counsel for the petitioner.
This is a tenant's petition challenging the judgment and decree dated 13.4.2022 passed by the Small Causes Court, Kanpur Nagar decreeing Small Causes Case No. 349 of 2019 which was registered for arrears of rent and eviction at the instance of the respondent - landlady against the petitioner as well as against the judgment and order dated 7.1.2023 passed by the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar in Small Causes Revision No. 397 of 2022 registered against the decree of the trial court.
The decree dated 13.4.2022 passed by the Small Causes Court is an ex parte decree. The proceedings before the trial court proceeded ex parte against the petitioner as the petitioner despite having appeared in the court after summons were duly served on him in the case absented from hearing in the case. The application filed by the petitioner under Order IX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was initially dismissed in default on 6.7.2021 and the subsequent application filed for recall of the aforesaid order was also subsequently dismissed in default on 18.2.2022. The third recall application filed by the petitioner was dismissed on merits vide order dated 13.4.2022 passed by the trial court. Subsequently, the decree was passed by the trial court on the basis of evidence produced by the respondent - landlady which included the receipts of the house tax which she had paid to the municipal body. It transpires from a reading of the order dated 7.1.2023 passed by the revisional court that the decree passed by the trial court was challenged by the petitioner on the ground that notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act as well as summons issued by the court were not sent on the proper address. The notices were sent on his official address. The petitioner contended before the revisional court that his official address was 83/13B, B.M. Market, Parampurva, Kanpur Nagar and the notices were addressed to 83/13, B.M. Market, Parampurva, Kanpur Nagar. The revisional court has rejected the aforesaid contention on the ground that the Vakalatnama and other documents initially filed by the petitioner in response to the summons served on him note his address as83/13, B.M. Market, Parampurva, Kanpur Nagar. The revisional court has also taken note of the fact that the petitioner had neither deposited the rent to seek benefit of Section 20(4) of Act No. 13 of 1972 nor any deposits were made by the petitioner under Section 30 of the said Act and further, there was non-compliance of Order XV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the petitioner. The revisional court has also taken note of the fact that the application of the petitioner filed under Order IX Rule 13 of theCode of Civil Procedure, 1908 for recall of the ex parte decree passed by the trial court was also dismissed because of non-compliance of Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. So far as the findings regarding arrears of rent against the petitioner is concerned, the same were proved by the landlady by her evidence and also by the receipt of house tax issued by the municipal body to the landlady and submitted before the trial court which indicated that the petitioner was in arrears of rent, rent as defined under Section 7 of Act No. 13 of 1972.
I do not find any perversity or any other illegality in the orders passed by the courts below so as to occasion interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.2.2023
Satyam
