RAFAT UMAR Vs. VIKAS KHURANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order of the Judge Small Causes Court, Bijnor dated 9.9.1999 rejecting the application of the defendant-applicant that the suit suffers from mis-joinder of causes of action and that the Court had no Jurisdiction to hear the case. The facts giving rise to this revision are that SCC Suit No. 6/1998 was filed by the plaintiff opposite party in the Court of Judge, Small Causes for ejectment, arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation with regard to shop Nos. 15 and 16 after terminating the tenancy by two separate notices dated 1.1.1998. It is alleged that U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is not applicable to the shops in dispute as both shops were constructed in February, 1987. The rent of each shop was alleged to be Rs. 600 per month and it was stated that the tenant had defaulted in paying the rent in respect of both the shops since 1.5.1997. A written statement was filed in which one of the pleas taken was that suit was bad for mis-joinder of cause of action inasmuch as there were two separate tenancies which had started on different dates, separate payment of rent had been made and separate receipts for rent were being given and as such, the causes of action were different. It was pleaded that the building was subject to U. P. Act 13 of 1972. The trial court by its impugned order dated 9.9.1999 held that there was no nils-Joinder of causes of action and that a single suit was maintainable.

(2.) Heard Shri Deoraj Singh counsel for the applicant and Sri K. M. Garg counsel for the opposite party.

(3.) The contention of Shri Deo Raj Singh, learned counsel for the applicant is that the causes of action in the two suits are different, and the suit is bad for multifariousness. He relies on the provisions of Order II, Rule 4, C.P.C. and contends that the suit for rent and ejectment is a suit for immovable property and the causes of action being distinct cannot be joined in the same suit.