The court established that the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 does not apply to the premises in dispute, as a new tenancy was created after reconstruction in 1990.

( 1 ) THE respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed S. C. C. Suit No. 21 of 1997 against the petitioner in the court of Judge Small Causes Court. Meerut, for eviction and for recovery of arrears of rent. The eviction was sought alleging that the premises in suit was constructed in the year 1990. The suit having been filed in the year 1997, the provisions of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 does not apply to the premises in suit. The suit for eviction as well as for recovery of arrears of rent was decreed by Judge Small Causes Court. Meerut, on 18. 7. 1998 by Judgment. Annexurc-8 to the writ petition. Aggrieved by it the petitioner preferred S. C. C. revision No. 374 of 1998, which has been dismissed by respondent No. 1 on 30. 3. 1999 by judgment. Annexure-9 to the writ petition. Aggrieved by the orders, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the request that both the orders. Annexures-8 and 9 to the writ petition be quashed and the suit of the respondents nos. 3 and 4 be dismissed with costs.

( 2 ) I have heard Sri K. K. Arora. learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R. K. Jain, learned senior advocate for respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

( 3 ) THE first argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent No. 4 is posted as District Judge and respondent No. 3 is his wife. That taking undue advantage of the position, the decree has been obtained in hot haste. That the adjournment application moved by the petitioner was rejected and the matter was decided by the learned Judge, Small Causes Court without providing opportunity to the petitioner to produce the evidence and hearing. The copy of the order sheet has also been filed in support of the argument, which is Annexure-6 to the writ petition. It is contended that the order sheet shows that on 16. 7. 1998, the petitioner moved the application for adjournment on the ground of his illness. That the case was adjourned only for one day and 17. 7. 1998 was fixed though the petitioner was ill. That on 17. 7. 1998 the petitioner again moved an application for adjournment on the same ground. The application was also supported by medical certificate, even then the application was rejected. That proper opportunity of hearing was not granted and the suit was decided in hot haste under the pressure of the respondents.

( 4 ) I have considered the arguments. It is admitted that in this case that fifteen adjournments were granted to the petitioner by the trial court. It is no doubt true that short adjournments were granted. However, it was a smalt cause matter and should have been decided expeditiously. No prejudice can be presumed for the reason that short adjournments were granted.

( 5 ) IT is also true that application for adjournment was moved by the petitioner on 16. 7. 1998 on the ground of illness which was supported by medical certificate. Even then the case was adjourned for day only. However, on 17. 7. 1998 again the application for adjournment was filed with the medical certificate of the same doctor. The respondents also produced the medical certificate of the same doctor from which it became apparent that the doctor is in the habit of issuing false medical certificates. The medical certificate was, therefore, not relied. It is contended by Sri K. K. Arora. learned counsel for the petitioner that if one wrong medical certificate was given, it does not mean that the other medical certificate was also false. This principle of law is correct and no such presumption can be taken. However, when the evidence was brought that the doctor whose medical certificate has been filed also issued a false medical certificate, the Court is justified in rejecting such medical certificate. In the circumstances, no illegality was committed by refusing to grant adjournment. This matter was considered by the rcvisional court in great detail and he expressed the opinion that