RAJU GUPTA Vs. DINESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar, holding brief of Sri Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist-defendant.

(2.) This revision under Sec. 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act, 1887 has been filed praying to set aside the order dated 5.7.2017 in J.S.C.C. Case No. 01 of 2016 (Dinesh Kumar Vs. Raju Gupta) passed by District Judge, Kasganj. By the impugned order, the application 26-C filed by the opposite party-plaintiff, has been allowed and replica-paper No. 23-C has been included in the records.

(3.) Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the revisionist-defendant and the opposite party-plaintiff are real brothers. The opposite party-plaintiff has filed aforesaid SCC case No. 01 of 2016 (Dinesh Kumar Vs. Raju Gupta) for eviction stating that he is the owner and landlord of the disputed shop situate in Mohalla Nadari Mohan, Kasba & Tehsil Kasganj, District Kasganj of which the revisionist-defendant is the tenant under the registered tenancy deed dated 18.5.2015. On account of default in payment of rent a notice dated 1.2016 was given by the opposite party-plaintiff/landlord to the revisionist-defendant/tenant terminating the tenancy and demanding arrears of rent. Since according to the opposite party-plaintiff/landlord the said notice was not complied with by the revisionist-defendant/tenant and as such he filed SCC Case No. 01 of 2016 on 19.4.2016. A written statement dated 29.9.2016 was filed by the revisionist-defendant. In paragraphs 13 to 31 of the written statement, the revisionist-defendant/tenant took additional pleas. According to the opposite party-plaintiff, certain new facts were pleaded in the written statement under the heading "Additional Pleas" and therefore, he filed a replica dated 17.4.2017 being paper No. 23 C. Subsequently, an application being paper No. 26 C was filed for leave of the court to take on record the aforesaid replica. On the margin of the replica, it was noted by the revisionist-defendant that the submission would be made at the time of hearing. An objection to the application for leave being paper No. 26 C was filed by the revisionist defendant on 5.7.2017 in which he took the stand that paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 and 18 of the replica are totally irrelevant. With respect to paragraph 13 of the replica it was stated that no tenancy deed was executed between the opposite party-plaintiff and the defendant-revisionist and the remaining averments are irrelevant. On these facts the court below allowed the application 26 C and included the replica paper No. 23 C in the file. Now the case was posted for 2.7.2017 for framing of issues.