A.N.Verma, J. - (1.) This petition is directed against an order dated 19-4-1979 passed by the Learned III Additional District Judge, Aligarh allowing a revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, setting aside a decree passed by the trial court and dismissing the petitioner's suit for the ejectment of the respondent No. 3 from the premises in suit. The decree for arrears of rent and damages passed by the trial court was, however, affirmed by the revisional court.
(2.) These are the relevant facts : The petitioner filed a suit No. 356 of 1970 in the court of learned Munsif, Hathras against the respondent No. 3 for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent and damages in respect of an accommodation of which the petitioner is the owner and landlords and the respondent No. 3, the tenant. While the suit was pending U P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XXXVII of 1972) came into force. In pursuance of the said Act and construing some notifications said to have been issued by the High Court between the years 1972 and 1973, the Learned Munsif Magistrate passed an order directing the return of the plaint to be presented to the court having jurisdiction to try the suit on the ground that the suit not having been transferred to that court by the learned District Judge, the learned Munsif had no jurisdiction to try the same. This order was passed on 18-8-1974. The petitioner took the plaint back from that Court on 19-8-1974, and presented it before the Learned District Judge on 20-8-74. There the suit was registered afresh and given a new number namely, suit No. 16 of 1974. Subsequently, the learned District Judge transferred the suit to the court of Munsif, Hathras to be tried as a Small Causes Court suit. Thereafter, the parties produced oral and documentary evidence.
(3.) After the suit was transferred to the court of the Munsif, Hathras by the learned District Judge and before the first date of hearing fixed in the suit after that transfer, the defendant-tenant, purporting to take advantage of the provisions of section 20(4), of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 moved an application before the court on 10-4-1975 with a prayer that the amount of arrears of rent, interest and costs of the suit be accepted from the petitioner and the suit for ejectment be dismissed under that provision. The tender of the amount offered by the petitioners was passed by the court on 10-4-1975 and in pursuance thereof the petitioner made the deposit of the amounts required to be deposited under that provision on 12.4.1975. This application was opposed by the petitioner on the ground that section 20(4) did not apply to the suit, inasmuch as, the present suit No 16 of 1974 was really a continuation of the previous suit No. 356 of 1970 and that, therefore, section 20(4) of the U P. Act No. XIII of 1972 would not apply to the present case. It was asserted that the Munsif, Hathras returned the plaint under a mistaken view of law. The suit was cognizable by him. The order of the learned Munsif, Hathras dated 18-8-1974 being erroneous in law and the suit having been sent back to that court, it must be presumed that the present suit is a continuation of suit No. 356 of 1970. This plea of the petitioner found favour with the trial court which decreed the suit for ejectment as well as for recovery of the arrears of rent and damages, overruling the claim of the respondent No. 3 under section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.;