- (1.) Heard Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.K. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the opposite parties 3 and 4. Issuance of notice of the opposite parties 5 to 8 is dispensed with.
(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the opposite parties 3 and 4 filed SCC Suit No. 151 of 2004 against the opposite parties 5 to 8 and the petitioner for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent and damages alleging that the petitioner, who is impleaded as defendant No. 3, is unauthorized occupant having been inducted as sub-tenant by the opposite parties 5 and 6. Neither notice was served upon the petitioner nor there is any order on record to proceed ex parte against the petitioner.
(3.) On 20.3.2010, the petitioner moved an application for furnishing a copy of the plaint so that he may file written statement and contest the Suit. The said application was rejected by the Court below holding therein that the tenancy was in the name of partnership-firm. Further, it has been said that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (opposite parties 5 and 6) have filed written statement on behalf of all the defendants and deposited the rent under section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and this application has been moved to delay the disposal of Suit. Being aggrieved, the defendant No. 2 filed a SCC Revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 before the Revisional Court challenging the order dated 20.3.2010 passed by the Trial Court which was rejected on the ground that he has no independent right and further, Revision is not maintainable being an interlocutory order.;