SHINGHAL, J.—These two revision petitions of the defendants have been heard together at the instance of the learned counsel for- the parties, and will be disposed of by this judgment. A common question of law arises in both the petitions, and as it is the sole point of controversy between the parties, they may be said to be companion petitions in that sense. I shall, however, make a brief reference to the relevant tacts of both the cases separately so that the common question of law may be examined in its proper perspective.

2. In S.B. Civil Revision petition No. 128 of 1973, the non-petitioners Lallu Narain and Mohan Lal instituted a suit against petitioner Hari Narain on November 7, 1970, for his eviction from the suit house, alleging that he had committed default in the payment of the rent for a period exceeding six months and had created a nuisance in the suit premises. The trial court, ordered the issue of summons to the defendant (petitioner) to appear and answer the claim on 22-2-1971. The defendant appeared in the court on that date, and his learned counsel brought to the notice of the court that he had not been supplied with a copy of the plaint and that a copy may be deliv

Click Here to Read the rest of this document