- (1.) S. P. Mehrotra, J. This writ petition has been by the petitioners, inter alia, seeking quashing of the order dated 19-9-2002 (Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition) passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Aligarh (Respondent No. 1), and the order dated 4-2-2002 (Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition) and the order dated 30-7-2002 (Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition) passed by the learned Judge Small Cause Court, Aligarh (Respondent No. 2 ).
(2.) THE dispute relates to an accommodation in a building bearing Municipal Corporation number 11/17, Karavan Manzil Balliaqillah Upperkot, Pargana and Tehsil Koil, District Aligarh. The said accommodation has hereinafter referred to as the "disputed accommodation". From the allegations made in the writ petition, it appears that the Respondent No. 3 filed a suit against the petitioners as the defendants Ist set, Respondent No. 5 as the defendant IInd set and the Sunni Central Waqf Board, Lucknow (Respondent No. 4) as the defendant IIIrd set in respect to the disputed accommodation. The said suit was filed inter alia, praying for decree for possession, arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation etc. The said suit was registered as SCC Suit No. 68 of 2000. It was, inter alia, alleged in the said suit that the Respondent No. 3 (plaintiff) was the landlord and Mutwalli of the Waqf property popularly known as "waqf Alal Aulad" having its registration Waqf Property No. 51 Ex-District Aligarh Bearing Municipal Corporation No. 11/17, Karwan Manzil, Balliaqillah, Upperkot Paragana and Tehsil Koil, District Aligarh; and that the disputed accommodation was a part and parcel of the said property; and that the petitioners were the tenant at the rate of Rs. 40 per month in the said disputed accommodation; and that the property in question being waqf property did not come within the ambit of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (in short "the Act"); and that the petitioners did not pay rent since 1-4-1999 despite repeated and constant demands, requests and persistent approaches made by the Respondent No. 3 (plaintiff); and that the petitioners became defalulter in payment of rent etc. ; and that the Respondent No. 3 (plaintiff) terminated the tenancy of the petitioners by the composite notice dated 5-4-2000 to the petitioners which was served personally upon the petitioners but the petitioners failed to comply with the said registered notice.
(3.) THE petitioners have not filed a copy of the plaint alongwith the writ petition. However, during the course of arguments, a copy of the plaint has been filed and the same is taken on record. It further appears that the petitioners contested the said suit by filing written statement. A copy of the written statement has been filed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. In the said written statement, the petitioners admitted themselves to be the tenant of the disputed accommodation. However, they pleaded that they had no knowledge about the said property being waqf property. It was, inter alia, alleged in the said written statement that the said Suit was not cognizable by the Judge, Small Cause Court. It further appears that the question regarding the maintainability of the said Suit before the Judge, Small Cause Court was pressed, and thereupon, the said order dated 4-2-2002 (Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition) was passed by the learned Judge, Small Cause Court (Respondent No. 2 ). It was, inter alia, furtehr observed that it observed in the said order that the evidence of the plaintiff had already been closed, and the case was fixed for evidence of the defendant. It was, inter alia, would not be proper to give decision on the said question at present, and the decision on the said question would be given after evidence of the defendant or at the time of final judgment.;