S.P.PANDEY, J. - (1.) THIS is a second revision petition, preferred against the order, dated 31-10-2000, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad, arising out of an order, dated 11-12-1998, passed by the learned trial Court in proceedings under Section 198(4) of the UPZA and LR Act (here in after referred to as the Act).
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, ihe facts of the case are that the proceedings for cancellation of ihe lease were iniliaied on an applica­tion moved by Kabir Ahmad. The learned trial Court, after completing the requisite formalities, dismissed this application on 11-12-1998. Aggrieved by this order, Kabir Ahmad prei'erred a revision. The learned Additional Commissioner, too has dis­missed the revision petition on 31-10-2000. It is against this order that this second revision petition has been preferred. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the papers, on file, concerning the main­tainability of this revision. For the revisionist, it was contended that the or­ders, passed by the learned Courts below arc incorrect, improper, illegal and against the facts and circumstances of the instant case; that the same arc based on surmises and presumptions and are no order in the eyes of law, that the learned Courts below have misread and mis-inlerpretted the evidence, on record, resulting in miscar­riage of justice and as such, the impugned orders, passed by the learned Courts be set aside. In reply, the learned counsel for the opposite party urged that consequent upon an amendment vide UP Act No. XX of 1997, a second revision is not main­tainable which must be dismissed, as such. In support, she has relied upon the case laws, reported in 2000 RD 707 and 1997 RD 467(HC).
(3.) I have closely and carefully ex­amined the submissions, made before me by the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the papers, on file. On an examination of the record, it is crystal clear that this second revision peti­tion has been preferred by the aforesaid Kabir Ahmad against the order dated 31-10-2000, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner. Since the second revision petition is not maintainable under the aforesaid amendment in Section 333 of the Act, I need not enter into the merits of the instant case and this second revision peti­tion is liable to be dismissed, as not main­tainable.;