JUDGMENT J.C. Mishra, J.
1. This revision has been filed against the order dated 14.9.1998 passed by Additional District Judge/Special Judge [E.G. Act). Meerut decreeing the suit flled by the opposite party for eviction and realisation of arrears of rent.
2. It is not disputed that the revisionist was tenant of the premises in suit on a monthly rent of Rs. 2,100. Since the rent payable was more than Rs. 2,000. there was no applicability of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972.
3. The defendant contested the suit inter alia, on the ground that the plaintiff was owner and landlord of the premises in suit, but he transferred his rights to the third person and. therefore, he could not prosecute the suit. The defendant did not adduce evidence and allowed the suit to be decided ex parte.
the allegation regarding transfer was vague. The plaintiff denied this allegation. The defendant could not file any deed indicating transfer of the property by plaintiff and this plea was rightly rejected by the learned Judge.
4. The revisionist also pleaded non-validity of the notice but could not point out any defect in the notice. In the grounds of revision, this plea has been taken but without indicating any Infirmity in the notice. During the arguments as well, the learned counsel Sri K. K. Srivastava could not point out any invalidity in the notice.
5. The learned Judge. Small Causes Court found that the rent from 1st October, 1996 to 19th December. 1997 was due and the defendant failed to pay the arrears of rent and damages despite the service of notice. He, therefore, decreed the suit for arrears of rent and damages from 1.11.1996 on the (sic average) mesne profit pendente lite and future at the rate of Rs. 2,100 per month. The learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the trial Judge committed error in deciding the case ex parte and he should have given opportunity to the revisionist to contest the suit. He contended that in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court, a policy should be adopted by the Court to decide the case on merits. The principle as argued by the learned counsel cannot be disputed but if a parry does not want to avail the opportunity, then he should blame himself than the Court. From the record, it appears that the High Court in writ jurisdiction had directed the Court to dispose of the suit expeditiously and not to adjourn the case in a routine manner unless the sufficient ground was made for adjournment. Despite this direction the defendant neither adduced any evidence nor moved, application for adjburnment on the date of evidence. Thereafter, he filed an application in this regard on the date of arguments. The learned Judge invited objection and fixed a date for objection. On that date also, the defendant did not appear and consequently the application was rejected. The learned Judge heard the arguments of the plaintiffs counsel and fixed a date for judgment. In the meanwhile, the revisionist again filed application on 22.9.1998 enquiring about the order passed on application dated 16.9.1998. If the plaintiff could not know about the order passed on his application, he should have blamed himself for not appearing on the date fixed in the Court nor inspected the record or submitted any questionnaire.
6. The above application made in the judgment shows that the revisionist was highly negligent and his only interest was to delay the decision thereby giving him opportunity to reside in the tenanted premises. The conduct of the defendant does not appear to be bona fide. It could be that he had practically no defence available, therefore, all he could do was to seek some means to delay the eviction. Moreover, if the revisionist was interested. he could have pointed out the Invalidity, if any in the notice and could have succeeded in getting proper relief including the reversal of the order regarding eviction.
7. I find that the Impugned judgment does not suffer from any error. The revision is dismissed.