Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—I have heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record. This petition has been filed prayer for the following reliefs :

(1) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 25.4.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Kanpur Nagar (Annexure-8) passed in S. C.C. Revision No. 56 of 2005, Khusiahal Verma v. Om Prakash, and the order dated 23.3.2005 passed by J.S.C.C., Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 21/74 of 2002 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition).

(2) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(3) Award cost of the petition to the petitioner.

2. The facts culled out of the record are that the petitioner is the tenant of one Khapraildar room of House No. 84/59, Sharab Mill Ka Ahata, J.K. Cotton Mill Gate No. 2 Anwarganj, Kanpur and the respondent is the landlord of the said aforesaid premises. The respondent filed J.S.C.C. Suit No. 137 of 1988 against the petitioner for ejectment on the ground of arrears of rent and damages which was decreed ex parte by the Judge Small Causes Court, Kanpur Nagar on 31.3.1989. When the petitioner came to know about the ex parte decree having been passed against him he moved an application and affidavit under Order 9 Rule 13, C.P.C. on 23.3.2002 and 26.3.2002 for setting aside ex parte decree. The application aforesaid was registered as Misc. Case No. 21/74 of 2002. The petitioner deposited Rs. 12,500/- through tender (13Ga) and the respondent also filed his objection on the same date and inter-alia that the application filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 be set aside on the ground that he has not made the compliance of Section 17 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred as PSCC Act, 1887) which is mandatory regarding the judgment debtor to furnish security for due compliance of the decree sought to be set aside.

3. It is urged that on 27.5.2002 the petitioner moved application (19Ga and 20Ga) alongwith affidavit before the J.S.C.C., Kanpur Nagar for granting him permission to file security in compliance of the provision to Section 17 of PSCC Act, 1887 and for fixing the amount of security to be furnished by him but the Judge Small Causes Court, Kanpur Nagar illegally, arbitrarily and without considering the fact that the petitioner had deposited the entire decretal amount and he moved the application dated 26.3.2002 as well as 27.5.2002 for making the compliance as required under Section 17(1) of the PSCC Act, 1887 and was always ready and willing to furnish the security but the J.S.C.C. rejected the application dated 27.5.2002 by his order dated 23.3.2005.

4. It is also urged that aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 23.3.2005 passed by J.S.C.C., Kanpur Nagar, the petitioner filed S.C.C. Revision No. 56 of 2005 before the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar on the ground that the Court below illegally held that the provisions of Section 17 of the Act has not been complied by the petitioner which was also dismissed by the revisional Court on inadequate grounds by its order dated 25.4.2006, ignoring the arguments of the petitioner.

5. The Court by the judgment impugned has held that the provision of Section 17 of the PSCC Act, 1887 has not been complied with. As such the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid premises.

6. The contention of the Counsel for the petitioner thus in brief is that the Court below has failed to consider that the petitioner sought permission from the Judge Small Causes Court on 26.3.2002 for furnishing security as required under Section 17 of the PSCC Act, 1887 and again he moved an application on 27.5.2002 for permission to file security as required under Section 17 of the Act but the J.S.C.C. Kanpur Nagar illegally, arbitrarily and on in-adequate grounds rejected the said application. It is urged by Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner in com