ALLAH MEHAR CARPAINTER Vs. PURAN CHAND JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record. SCC Suit No. 94 of 1998 was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents against the petitioner-tenant on the ground that he is a defaulter in payment of rent of the shop in dispute which was taken by him at the rate of '200/- per month. The petitioner tenant contested the suit by filing his written statement on 24th March, 1999 inter alia that SCC Suit filed by the plaintiffs respondents was not covered by the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation Of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) whereas the case of the landlords in the Court below was that the building was not covered by U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.

(2.) During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner moved an application under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. (paper No. 61-Ga) for rejection of the suit plaint, which was rejected by the Judge Small Causes Court, Meerut vide judgment and order dated 9.11.2004. Before the Court below since one of the core questions involved in the suit regarding maintainability of the suit on the ground of applicability of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and the other core question of being question of defaulter in payment of rent, it has directed that issues raised by the petitioner will be heard at the time of final hearing after taking of the evidence.

(3.) Aggrieved by the order aforesaid, Revision No. 137 of 2005 was filed by the petitioner challenging rejection of his application under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. This application was objected upon by the landlords on the ground of being time barred. The Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Meerut rejected the revision of the petitioner as barred by time vide judgment and order dated 17.2.2011.