JUDGMENT V.K. Mehrotra, J. - This is a defendant's revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act against whom a decree, inter alia, for ejectment for the premises in question was passed by the First Additional District Judge, National exercising the powers of Judge, Small Causes. 2. The suit for ejectment of the applicant was filed in the year 1972 on the ground that the applicant was in arrears of rent and had failed to pay the amount in arrears in spite of service of notice of demand upon him. The tenancy of the applicant having been terminated by a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, in spite where of the applicant failed to vacate the premises in suit, the plaintiff went to court. The suit came to be tried by the Judge, Small Causes upon transfer to his court on account of the provisions of U.P. Act 37 of 1972. 3. At one stage on August 19, 1972, the plaintiff-opposite party filed an application with the prayer that the applicant's defence be struck off on account of the failure of the applicant to comply with the provisions of Order XV, Rule 5 C.P.C. This application was numbered as paper no. 21C. The plaintiff also sought amendment of the plaint in certain respects and that application was numbered as paper no 22-C. By an order dated February 8, 1976 which was passed in the presence of the parties, the trial Judge fixed April 12, 1975 as the date for disposal of the aforesaid two applications. 4. On April 12, 1975 the defence of the applicant was struck off by the court. One of the learned counsel appearing for the applicant before the trial Judge withdrew from the case with the leave of the court. The other learned counsel was not present nor was the applicant present on that date. Consequently, the trial Judge proceeded ex parte against the applicant and passed a decree as prayed by the plaintiff. 5. The applicant later made an application under Order IX rule 13 C.P.C. seeking the setting aside of the ex parte decree. That application was, however, dismissed by the trial Judge by order dated June 7, 1975. That order has been a sailed by the applicant in the connected First Appeal from order No. 242 of 1975. 6. 5. The applicant later made an application under Order IX rule 13 C.P.C. seeking the setting aside of the ex parte decree. That application was, however, dismissed by the trial Judge by order dated June 7, 1975. That order has been a sailed by the applicant in the connected First Appeal from order No. 242 of 1975. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that the ex parte decree dated April 12, 1975 passed by the trial Judge cannot be sustained. It is clear from the order-sheet of the trial court in the case that April 12, 1975 had been fixed by the trial Judge only for the disposal of the two applications, namely paper no. 21-C and 22-C. That date was not the date fixed by the court for the hearing of the suit. As such, it is obvious that the trial Judge could not proceed to hear and decree the suit ex parte on that date. The application in revision, consequently, must succeed. 7. In the result, the revision is allowed and the ex parte decree dated April 12, 1975 passed by the trial Judge, not being in accordance with law, is set aside. The applicant shall be entitled to his costs.