- (1.) S. P. Mehrotra, J. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed, inter-alia, challenging the order, dated 15-3-2002 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ) passed by Respondent No. 2 and the order dated 30-5-2002 (Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition) passed by Respondent No. 1.
(2.) IT appears that the Respondent No. 3 filed a suit against the petitioner in respect of a shop, the details whereof have been given at the foot of the plaint. The relief sought in the said suit was for decree for ejectment and arrears of rent etc. The said suit was registered as S. C. C. Suit No. 3 of 2000. A copy of the plaint of the said S. C. C. Suit No. 3 of 2000,has been filed as Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition. A perusal of the plaint of the said S. C. C. Suit No. 3 of 2000 shows that it was, inter-alia, alleged by the Respondent No. 3 that he was the owner and landlord of the shop in question; and that the petitioner was a tenant of the shop in question at the rent of Rs. 150/- per month; and that the rent from February, 1986 and onwards was due from the petitioner which the petitioner did not pay despite reported demands; and that the rent for more than four months was, thus, due against the petitioner, and that the petitioner committed default in payment of rent; and that the notice of demand under Section 20 of the U. P. Act, XIII of 1972 as well as for determination of tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was given by the Respondent No. 3 through his counsel to the petitioner on 17- 1-2000 which was received by the petitioner on 21-1-2000; and that despite the service of the said demand notice on 21-1-2000, the petitioner did not pay any rent; and that the tenancy stood determined on the expiry of 30 days from 21-1-2000. The petitioner contested the said S. C. C. Suit No. 3 of 2000 and filed his written statement, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition. It was, inter-alia, alleged by the petitioner in the said written statement that no cause of action arose to the Respondent No. 3; and that Suit No. 34 of 1986, Munni Devi v. Shanti Devi and others, was pending for consideration in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deoria in respect of the shop in question; and in the said Suit No. 34 of 1986, an order dated 19-2-1986 was passed restraining the Respondent No. 3 from realizing the rent in respect of the shop in question from the petitioner, and further, restraining the petitioner from paying any rent; and that the said S. C. C. Suit No. 3 of 2000 filed by the Respondent No. 3 for recovery of rent besides amounting to contempt of Court, was liable to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(3.) IN reply to the said written statement filed by the petitioner, replication was filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 3 in the said S. C. C. Suit No. 3 of 2000. A copy of the said replication has been filed as Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed in the said S. C. C. Suit No. 3 of 2000 which have been referred to in Paragraph No. 5 to the Writ Petition. Issue No. 3 framed in the said S. C. C. Suit No. 3 of 2000 is quoted below: "whether the suit is barred by Order XII Rule 11 of the C. P. C. ?";