Chandra Prakash, J.
1. This is an application in revision against the order dated 8-4-1974 of Shri K. K. Birla, District Judge, Agra, dismissing the applicant's revision after confirming the order of the trial court.
2. The facts leading to this application in revision are not disputed and may be narrated as follows. The applicant moved an application under Section 11 of the U. P. Cantonments (Control ofRent and Eviction) Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the opposite party on the allegation that the opposite party was a tenant of the applicant under an allotment order and that more than three months' rent amounting to Rs. 444/- had fallen into arrears. This application under Section 11 of the Act was presented on 24-3-1971. Notice was issued to the opposite party for 31-7-1971-On 31-7-1971 the opposite party did not appear. The service of notice on him was held to be sufficient. The case was, however, adjourned to 8-10-1971 for disposal. It appears that the case was not taken on that date and it was adjourned to 7-1-1972. On 7-1-1972 also nobody appeared on the side of the opposite party and the trial court passed an order of eviction under Section 12 of the Act and communicated it to the District Magistrate. On 24-12-1972 the opposite party was evicted.
3. Within a month of the eviction, that is, on January 8, 1973, the opposite party moved an application for setting aside the ex parte order passed against him on the ground that he had not been properly served. This application was moved by the opposite party under Order IX, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code and Section 151, Civil Procedure Code. This application of the opposite party was allowed on 20-10-1973 and the ex parte order evicting him was set aside. On December 8, 1973 the opposite party filed an objection under Section 11 of the Act alleging that he was not a tenant of the applicant, nor were the premises in dispute allotted to him under the Act.
4. The trial court after hearing the parties and taking evidence came to the conclusion that the premises in dispute were not allotted to the opposite party and as such he was not a tenant contemplated by Section 11 of the Act Accordingly the application under Section 11 of the Act against the opposite party was dismissed.
5. Against the above order the applicant filed a revision in the Court below and the learned District Judge after hearing the parties dismissed that revision.
6. Against the above order the applicant-landlord has come up in revision before me.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. I have also gone through the record. I am afraid the order passed against the applicant cannot be interfered with.
8. The learned counsel for the applicant has not challenged the order setting aside the ex parte order of eviction against the opposite party and indeed it is not open to challenge for that order was passed on 20-10-1973, and no revision or appeal was filed against it and, therefore, it has become final.
9. The grievance of the applicant, however, is that under Section 12 of the Act the opposite party could not file any objection except with regard to costs without depositing the arrears of rent which had been demanded from him. Admittedly, no arrears of rent were deposited by the opposite party in the case. But Sections 11 and 12 of the Act apply to tenants as contemplated by the Act and the tenant is one to whom the premises in dispute had been allotted under the Act The objection of the opposite party was that he was not a tenant of the applicant at all and the premises in dispute were never allotted to him, and the Court below has found that the opposite party was neither a tenant of the applicant, nor was he allottee under the Act. In this view of the matter Sections 11 and 12 of the Act will not apply to the present case at all, for the simple reason that the opposite party was not a tenant as contemplated by the Act. I am supported in my view by the ruling reported in Shri Dhar Shukla v. Babu Lal, (1961 All LJ 631). This ruling was passed on Section 7-B of the Control of Rent and Eviction Act and Section 11 of the Act is analogous or similar to Section 7-B of the Control of Rent and Eviction Act.
10. For the reasons given above,this application in revision has no forceand it is accordingly dismissed wth costs.