Hon’ble Shabihul Hasnain, J.—Heard Sri Ratan Kant Sharma learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri S.K. Mehrotra for the opposite parties.

2. Revisionist is the owner and landlord of Building No. 6-A, Pratap Market, Aminabad, Lucknow. He let out a shop consisting of Ground Floor and basement to the opposite party on a monthly rent of Rs. 900/- per month. Opposite party shifted his business to a shop in Pahwa Building, Pratap Market, Aminabad, Lucknow illegally and unauthorizedly sublet the shop in question to one Jai Kishan Daryani. Revisionist sent a notice on 16.6.2000 to the opposite party about his illegal subletting. In the month of June, 2007 the opposite party again illegally sublet the shop in question to one Kanhiya Hemwani on a monthly rent of Rs. 20,000/- p.m. and did not pay the rent to the revisionist from April, 2007. Revisionist sent a composite notice on 15.12.2009 terminating tenancy and demanding arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation. On 16.12.2009 the notice was duly served on the opposite party.

3. Revisionist filed S.C.C. Suit No. 9 of 2010, Kishan Lal Gulati v. Lakhi Daryani, before the District Judge, Lucknow on which order was passed to register the case and issue notice to defendant, fixing 2.4.2010 and the case was transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No. 13, Lucknow. Additional District Judge, Court No. 13, Lucknow again issued notices by both ways fixing 20.5.2010 for written statement. The notice by registered post was served personally on 24.4.2010. Notice by the process server was also served personally on the opposite party on 25.4.2010.

4. The opposite party did not appear nor filed written statement. Case was adjourned to 5.6.2010 for filing written statement. The opposite party did not appear nor filed written statement. Case adjourned to 30.8.2010 for filing written statement and issues. On 24.7.2010 the maximum period of 90 days expired for filing written statement but no written statement was filed nor the opposite party appeared nor moved application for extension of time to file written statement. On 30.8.2010 neither the opposite party appeared nor filed the written statement. Case was adjourned to 27.10.2010. The opposite party on 27.10.2010 appeared through a senior counsel and moved application under Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 but neither filed written statement nor moved any application for filing the written statement. The trial Court ordered to deposit at his own risk.

5. Revisionist moved an application on 27.10.2010 for closing the defence of opposite party as no written statement was filed within the prescribe period. Case was adjourned to 19.11.2010. Again on several dates i.e. 19.11.2010, 20.11.2010 and 20.12.2010 case was adjourned but neither any written statement was filed nor any application for time to file written statement was moved. Case was adjourned to 1.2.2011. On 1.2.2011 revisionist filed objection to the application under Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Case adjourned to 3.2.2011. Again on 3.2.2011, 28.3.2011 and 3.5.2011 the case was adjourned but no written statement was filed. Up till 22.8.2012 several dates have been fixed but no written statement was filed by the opposite party.

6. On 29.8.2012 the opposite party moved application for filing written statement which was opposed by the revisionist. Case was adjourned to 15.10.2012 for filing objection by the revisionist. Revisionist filed detailed objection against the application dated 29.8.2012, case was adjourned to 16.11.2012. Opposite party filed affidavit in support of application. The case was adjourned to 20.12.2012. The case was also adjourned on 20.12.2012. Case was taken up on 14.1.2013. Opposite party filed objections against objection of revisionist dated 15.11.2012. On 13.2.2013 counter-affidavit/objection filed by revisionist against the objection of opposite party. Opposite party filed rejoinder-affidavit to the counter