MAHENDRA KUMAR Vs. VTH A D J

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(2.) In short the facts of the case are that the petitioner landlord moved an application Under Section 12 read with Section 16(1)(b) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. It appears from the record that on 4.3.1999 an application was moved by the respondent No. 3 tenant that since the landlord accepts him as a tenant, therefore, the trial court has no jurisdiction to hear and decide proceedings Under Section 12/16 of Act No. 13 of 1972.

(3.) The trial court vide order dated 14.7.1999, rejected the application dated 4.3.1999 holding that he does not have jurisdiction to hear and decide the proceedings, which was challenged before the revisional court. The respondent tenant challenged the aforesaid order vide Revision Application No. 83 of 1999 Under Section 18 of the Act. The Vth Additional District Judge, Bijnor, vide Impugned order dated 18.10.2000 allowed the revision filed by respondent No, 3 against order dated 14.7.1999 of the trial court, aggrieved the petitioner has challenged the same in this petition.