JUDGMENT - M.P. KANADE, J.:---The petitioner claims to be a tenant and in occupation of the premises being matter-garage in bungalow No. 768/6 in P.Y.C. Gymkhana, in the City of Pune. The monthly rent is Rs. 30/-. the petitioner has been staying there along with the members of his family. Respondent No. 1 landlord by his notice dated June 5, 1972, demanded arrears of rent with effect from 1st January, 1972. On getting the said notice, the petitioner-tenant sent a money order of Rs. 93/- to the landlord towards the arrears of rent and the said money order was accepted by the landlord. The petitioner tenant contended that certain repairs were effected by him and after having deducted the cost of these repairs, balance was sent by money order. The respondent filed a suit on July 12, 1972, in the Court of Small Causes at Pune, claiming possession of the suit premises from the petitioner and also for arrears of rent, future mesne profits and the cost of the suit. 2. The petitioner-tenant resisted the said suit, and denied the claim of the landlord. According to the petitioner, the plaintiff avoided to issue receipts even after payment of rents. The petitioner had carried out necessary repairs and he had incurred some expenditure in carrying out those repairs. 3. The suit was fixed for hearing before the II Additional Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Pune, on March 6, 1974. On that day, since the petitioner-tenant was absent on account of his illness, the Advocate for the petitioner filed an application seeking adjournment which was rejected by the learned Judge. The Advocate for the petitioner-tenant had no alternative but to give pursis of no instructions, and thereafter the learned Judge proceeded to decide the suit ex parte, received evidence of the plaintiff by way of an affidavit, and judgment and order was passed on March 7, 1974. The learned Judge also passed a decree in a sum of Rs. 224.75 p. towards the arrears of rent till the date of the suit. The learned Judge also passed a decree in a sum of Rs. 224.75 p. towards the arrears of rent till the date of the suit. The petitioner-tenant having come to know of the ex parte decree, submitted an application on March 11, 1974, to the Court of the learned II Additional Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Pune, praying for setting aside the said ex parte decree and for restoration of the suit to its file and for deciding the same on merits in accordance with law. In the said application, the petitioner had submitted that he was ill on account of severe pain in his stomach and that he had been operated upon for ulcer and that he had gone to the hospital for being admitted from time to time. On the said application of the petitioner for restoration of the suit of its file, the Court passed an order for calling the records and Proceedings of the case on July 11, 1974. The Roznama shows that Records and Proceedings of the main case were called for on two subsequent days. Yadi appears to have been sent and thereafter the case was adjourned to July 25, 1974, on which date Records and Proceedings of the case were received and the case was adjourned for hearing on August 3, 1974. On August 3, 1974, when the matter was called out, the petitioner was absent, and, therefore, that application was dismissed for default on August 3, 1974. 4. On August 5, 1974 yet another application was made for restoration of the original application filed by the petitioner-tenant. It is mentioned in the said application dated August 5, 1974, that from the order of the Court it was not clear that August 3, 1974 was the date for final hearing or for calling the papers, and on account of the fact, the petitioner-tenant and his Advocate had remained absent and the application was accordingly dismissed for default. In the said application, a prayer was made that this application may be treated as one under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restoration of the previous application. 5. The said application was resisted by the landlord. It appears that the landlord has stepped into the witness-box and his statement was recorded. He has stated that the petitioner is a chronic defaulter. 5. The said application was resisted by the landlord. It appears that the landlord has stepped into the witness-box and his statement was recorded. He has stated that the petitioner is a chronic defaulter. There was a previous suit between the parties which was ultimately compromised and every time the petitioner remained absent in order to prolong the litigation. It appears that the statements made by the landlord weighed with the learned Judge, and therefore, relying upon the evidence of the landlord-respondent, the application filed by the petitioner-tenant was dismissed by judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Pune, on November 7, 1974. Against the said judgment and order passed by the learned Judge, the present petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. After hearing the Counsel for the parties. I feel that the tenant should be given and opportunity to contest the main suit. It is true that he remained absent on the date of the hearing in the said suit. However, his Advocate was present and he had requested for a short adjournment which was refused and thereafter, an ex parte decree is passed. Thus, the petitioner-tenant had no opportunity to contest the said suit. The main question in the said suit is about arrears of rent. The petitioners tenancy is terminated by the notice dated June 5, 1972, on the ground of arrears of rent for more than six months. The petitioner-tenant had contended in the said suit, that he had made certain repairs and he is entitled to the deduction of the amount spent by him towards those repairs. There is no doubt that a sum of Rs. 93/- was sent by the petitioner-tenant by money-order, which the landlord had received. Having regard to all these facts it will be in the interests of justice to given an opportunity to the petitioner-tenant to contest the suit and to establish his defence. No doubt there are laches on the part of the petitioner in the conduct of the suit. He remained absent twice and thus, prolonged the litigation to some extent. Having regard to all these facts it will be in the interests of justice to given an opportunity to the petitioner-tenant to contest the suit and to establish his defence. No doubt there are laches on the part of the petitioner in the conduct of the suit. He remained absent twice and thus, prolonged the litigation to some extent. The lower Court seems to have been influenced by the statements made by the landlord which were irrelevant for the purposes of considering as to whether the restoration application should be granted or not and as to whether there was any sufficient cause for the restoration of the same. It appears to me that the tenant had immediately made an application for restoration of the suit. On the second occasion also, he was absent and he had given some explanation. The lower Court ought to have taken into consideration the material facts while deciding that application. It is true that the proceedings are pending right from 1974 and considerable delay is caused in the disposal of the said suit. But in the interest of justice it will be necessary to set aside the order passed by the Additional Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Pune, dated November 7, 1974 and give an opportunity to the petitioner-tenant to contest the main suit, so that the dispute between the parties may be finally settled. 7. In the results, the order passed by the Additional Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Pune on November 7, 1974 in Miscellaneous Application No. 485 of 1974 is set aside, so also the order passed on August 3, 1974 is also set aside and the original Civil Suit No. 1993 of 1972 is restored to file, and the ex parte decree passed on March 7, 1974 in the Civil Suit No. 1993 of 1972 is also set aside. The Additional Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Pune, is directed to take the main suit on its file by the end of July 24, 1978 and fix up to the date in the presence of the parties for trial of the main suit. It is further directed that the main suit may be finally disposed of by the end of August 1978. 8. It is further directed that the main suit may be finally disposed of by the end of August 1978. 8. The parties are directed to appear before the lower Court on July 24, 1978, on which date the learned Judge will fix up the date for final hearing of the main suit and dispose of the same by the end of August 1978. 9. Rule made absolute. 10. The petitioner shall pay the costs of this petition to the respondent. -----