MANVENDRA KUMAR CHATTERJEE Vs. SHAILENDRA KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) By means of this writ petition moved under Section 226 read with Section 227 of Constitution of India, the Petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 08.01.2010 (copy Annex. 13 to the writ petition) passed by Additional District Judge, Rishikesh, in SCC revision No. 23 of 2008, whereby said court allowed the applications 20C, and 22C filed by the Respondent (Tenant) and remanded the case to the trial court.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner Shailendra Kumar is landlord, and Respondent Manvendra Kumar Chatterjee is his tenant in shop No. 12 Veer Market, 103 Haridwar Road,Rishikesh, on rent @ 622/-( Rupees six hundred and twenty two only) per month. It appears that the Petitioner (landlord) instituted Small Cause suit No. 42 of 2003, against the Respondent for his eviction after terminating his tenancy by serving a notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The Respondent contested the suit and filed his written statement. He did not deny that the provisions of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, (for short U.P. Act, 1972) were not applicable to the case. The Respondent did not claim benefit of Sub-section (4) of Section 20 of said Act. The trial court (JSCC/ Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Dehradun), after recording evidence and hearing the parties, decreed the suit for eviction of the Respondent vide judgment and decree dated 11.07.2008. Aggrieved by said judgment and decree Respondent Manvendra Kumar Chatterjee (tenant) filed SCC revision No. 23 of 2008 under Section 25 of Provincial of Small Cause Court Act, 1887. During the pendency of said revision, it appears that the Respondent (revisionist before the lower court) moved applications 20C and 22C. In application 20C he sought amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, in the written statement to take plea of protection under Sub-section (4) of Section 20 of U.P. Act,13 of 1972. In application 22C Respondent (revisionist in lower court) sought permission to file additional evidence by the impugned order. The trial court allowed the said applications. Hence this petition.