Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:49391 Court No. - 6 Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 79 of 2009 Revisionist :- Chandra Shekhar Singh Opposite Party :- Addl. Judge/ Special Judge Ayodhya Prakaran Lucknow Counsel for Revisionist :- R.C.Singh,Bal Keshwar Srivastava,Sushil Kumar Singh,Vivek Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- Vidya Prasad Nagaur Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist. 2. Present revision has been filed challenging the order dated 08.05.2009 whereby the application for recall of the ex-parte decree was rejected as well as the order dated 01.09.2007 whereby the suit filed by the opposite party was decreed for rent and ejectment, ex-parte. 3. Suit in question was filed in the year 1996 alleging that the revisionist was a tenant of the premises at the rent of Rs.350/- per month since 1991. The property in question was owned by plaintiff who had executed power of attorney in favour of Kusumlata w/o Jagmohan and was authorized to sign and verify the plaint. In the said suit, it was stated that for the period 01.10.1992 up to 31.07.1995 tenant had failed to pay the rent amounting to Rs.11,900/- and had also not paid the electricity charges and the municipal taxes despite notice served on 04.08.1995. 4. The revisionist filed his written statement which was numbered as Paper No.13 A in which the revisionist admitted that he was the tenant of the premises. It was also admitted that the revisionist was tenant at the rate of Rs.150/- per month since 1991 which was taken on tenancy from Shri Jagmohan. The fact with regard to execution of the power of attorney was also denied. The factum of payment of any amount was denied. The revisionist also denied his liability to pay the electricity charges or the municipal taxes. The revisionist also took a ground that the premises in question was not a newly constructed building and provisions of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 would apply. He also denied the notices. The revisionist also took a defense that he had deposited the money with the original landlord Jagmohan, however, no receipts were given to him. 5. It was also stated that a suit being Suit No.252 of 1993 was instituted by the revisionist against the landlord for the relief that he may not be evicted except in accordance with law. 6. The revisionist after filing written statement stopped appearing from 11.10.2001 on which date the Court directed the matter to proceed ex-parte. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for evidence by the landlord, however, no efforts were made by the revisionist for recall of the ex-parte order. 7. Subsequently, an application was moved by the revisionist on 11.12.2006 requesting to adjourn the matter on the basis of SCC Revision Nos.36 of 1999 and 77 of 2005 being pending, however, the same was rejected. Thereafter, the JSC Court, based upon the material and the evidence on record, proceeded to hold that no efforts were made by the revisionist to produce the record to demonstrate that the provisions of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 were applicable. The Court also noticed that the property in question itself was allotted on 06.07.1985 and permission to raise the construction was given some time in the year 1993. Based upon these, the Court recorded that the provisions of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 would not apply. The Court also recorded that the power of attorney was rightly executed by the owner. The finding with regard to default was also recorded and thus, after recording the findings of fact, the suit in question was decreed ex-parte. 8. The revisionist thereafter moved an application seeking recall of an ex-parte decree some time in the year 2007. The said Application No.6 C came to be dismissed vide order dated 08.05.2009. While doing so, the Court recorded that the compliance of Section 17 was not made within the time prescribed, however, the amounts were deposited after one month, however, the Court considering the conduct of the revisionist ultimately dismissed the application vide order dated 08.05.2009. 9. Challenging both the orders, present revision has been filed. 10. Learned counsel for the revisionist argues that the landlord did not file the eviction suit. It is stated that subsequently, the property in question has been sold to a third person who has filed an impleadment application which is said to be pending. He, thus, argues that once the landlord has sold the property, the decree in question cannot be sustained and be set aside on that ground alone. 11. Considering the submissions made, it is clear that the trial Court after analyzing the material on record including the documentary evidence has recorded that the provisions of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 would not apply and thus, only the service of notice was enough to determine the tenancy. In the entire revision, there is no material to suggest that the notice was not served; a finding of fact has been recorded to that effect. Once the notice was found to be served, nothing more is to be seen. Even if the revisionist has deposited the rent and the entire decreetal amount at the time of setting aside of the ex-parte decree, the same will not cure the initial facts that the property is not covered under the provisions of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. After the service of notice, tenancy has been determined. 12. In view thereof, both the impugned orders do not deserve to be interfered with. 13. As the property in question is a tenanted accommodation since 1991 by the revisionist, this case is yet another case which demonstrates the manner in which the process of law has been misused by the tenant to resist eviction. 14. No interference is called for. 15. Present civil revision is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 22.8.2025 nishant Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench