Hari Om vs Special Judge S.C.S.T. Act Gonda

Anil Kumar, J.—Heard Shri N. N. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Q.M. Haque, learned counsel for the opposite party and perused the record.

In the city of Gonda, there is a house situated at Mohalla-Terhi Bazar, Gonda City, District-Gonda. In the said house, there is a shop, which was let out by the father of opposite party no.2/Smt. Vimla Devi @ Rs.6/- per month in favour of father of the petitioner. After the death of original tenant/Shri Ram Chander, his sons/petitioner have become tenants of the shop in question.

On 30.03.1998, opposite party no.2/landlady filed a suit bearing S.C.C. Suit No.04/98 against the petitioners for arrears of rent & eviction from the premises in question in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gonda. In the said suit, opposite party no.2 moved an application (Ga- 2/37) under Order 15, Rule 5 C.P.C. to the effect that since the petitioners could not deposit the arrears of rent for the entire period shown in the plaint along with interest @ 9% p m on the first date of hearing and they also did not make the deposit of the rent of the preceding month on every 7th date of next month during the pendency of the said suit. Hence, defence of the petitioner may be struck off under Order 5, Rule 15 C.P.C. Against the said application, petitioner filed an objection (Ga-2/45).

By order dated 08.02.2005, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gonda dismissed the application under Order 15, Rule 5 C.P.C. moved by the opposite party no.2, challenged by the opposite party no.2 by filing revision bearing Civil Revision No.76/05, allowed by order dated 11.01.2008 passed by opposite party no.1/Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Gonda.

In view of the above said factual background, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for redressal of his grievances before this Court.

During the pendency of the present writ petition, opposite party no.2/Smt. Vimla Devi died and she has been succeeded by her sons, namely, Krishna Murari Gupta and Radhey Shyam Gupta.

Needless to mention herein that after arguing at some length, it is amicably settled between the learned counsel for the parties that Judge Small Causes Court may be directed to decide the S.C.C. Suit No.4/98 on merit within time frame as fixed by this Court and shall also decide the matter whether the petitioners have deposited the arrears of rent or not.

For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the prescribed authority/Judge Small Causes Court to decide the S.C.C. Suit No.04/98 on merit within a period of six months from today and while doing so, pleadings in regard to arrears of rent as taken by the landlords shall also be decided on merit.