JUDGMENT :

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

Petitioner Sakuma Finvest Pvt. Ltd., is the tenant, and respondent Chemox Exports Imports Pvt. Ltd., is the landlord. Initially, on 12th December 2012, the landlord filed RAE Suit No.1398/3081 of 2012 against the tenant, for a decree of eviction. On 9th May 2013, the suit was decreed ex parte. Later on 7th October 2013, the tenant filed Marji Application No.666 of 2013 under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to have the ex parte decree set aside, but could not succeed. The application was dismissed on 10th February 2015.

2. Aggrieved, the tenant filed Appeal No.108 of 2015 before the Appellate Bench of the Small Cause Court, Mumbai, which was also dismissed on 6th May 2017. Eventually, the tenant filed this writ petition, questioning the Appellate Bench's order.

3. Shri Vishal Kanade, the learned counsel for the tenant, submits that Order IX Rule 13 lays down two grounds for the defendant to have an ex parte decree set aside. According to him, if the defendant could prove that no summons had been served on him or that he had been prevented for sufficient reason from appearing before the Court despite service of summons, that would