JUDGMENT Mahendra Dayal, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Prashant Pandey holding brief of Shri Santosh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.3. 2. The petitioner has assailed the judgment and order dated 23.03.2010 passed by the Judge Small Causes Court, Lucknow in SCC Suit No.141 of 2000, whereby the suit was decreed ex-parte and the judgment and order dated 21.10.2014 passed by the Special Judge Anti Corruption/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Lucknow whereby the S.C.C. Revision No.89/2010 filed against the aforesaid judgment and order of the Judge Small Cause Court was dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of S.C.C. suit, his defence was struck off by the order dated 24.03.2009 against which he preferred a revision before the District Judge, which was also dismissed on 23.03.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner was not given any opportunity to give any evidence in defence or cross-examine the witnesses of the plaintiff-opposite party no.3. 4. Since the petitioner was not allowed to give any defence, the S.C.C. Suit was decreed on the ground that the petitioner was in arrears of rent and his tenancy was validly terminated by giving notice as required under Section 20 of the Rent Control Act. Feeling aggrieved by the ex-parte judgment and decree passed by the Judge Small Cause Court, the petitioner preferred S.C.C.Revision before the learned District Judge, Lucknow and the revisional court also did not provide any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the revision was dismissed upholding the judgment of the S.C.C. Court. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 has submitted that against the order of striking off the defence of the petitioner, he preferred a revision before the District Judge, which was also dismissed. Since the petitioner did not challenge the orders striking off the defence, before this Hon'ble Court, therefore, the order became final. Under these circumstances, the trial court did not allow the petitioner to give any evidence in defence. With regard to the S.C.C.Revision, the submission on behalf of the opposite party no.3 is that it is clear from the impugned judgment and order itself that the petitioner was also heard in revision. Under these circumstances, the trial court did not allow the petitioner to give any evidence in defence. With regard to the S.C.C.Revision, the submission on behalf of the opposite party no.3 is that it is clear from the impugned judgment and order itself that the petitioner was also heard in revision. It has also been submitted on behalf of the opposite party no.3 that before striking off the defence, the petitioner was given opportunity to deposit rent in Court but when the petitioner did not deposit any rent in compliance of the Court's order, the defence of the petitioner was struck off. Moreover, since the order striking off the defence of the petitioner has attained finality, the petitioner could not have been given any opportunity of giving his defence. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned judgment in this writ petition, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment. Hence, the writ petition has no force and it is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. However, in the circumstances of the case, the petitioner is given two months' time from today to vacate the premises in dispute. It is further provided that in case the petitioner fails to vacate the premises in dispute within the aforesaid period, the opposite party no.3 shall be at liberty to get the decree executed through process of law.