- (1.) Heard Sri Ravi Agrawal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Virendra Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondent. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 21.2.2005 passed by Judge Small Causes Court/Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No. 1 in S.C.C. No. 52 of 1985, Sri. Sudarshan Lal Jain and another v. Chaudhary Dharampal and order dated 22.3.2007 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge Court No. 8 Muzaffar Nagar in SCC Revision No. 8 of 2005, Abhinandan Prasad Jain v. Chaudhari Dharampal.
(2.) Vide order dated 21.2.2005, the suit filed by the petitioner for eviction of the respondent, on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent and electricity charges etc., was dismissed, whereas by the subsequent order dated 22.3.2007, the petitioner's revision, challenging the order dated 21.2.2005, has also been dismissed.
(3.) The facts giving rise to this case are that it appears the petitioner filed S.C.C. No. 52 of 1985 against the respondent terminating his tenancy on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent i.e., Rs. 2664/- since 18.11.1984 to 13.9.1985, plus electricity charges of Rs. 271/-, plus printing charges Rs. 344.50/-, plus damages Rs. 360/- since 14.9.1985 to 20.10.1985, total Rs. 3639.50/-. The rent was demanded at the rate of Rs. 270/- per month. The respondent has filed written statement and stated that the rate of rent is Rs. 150/- and not Rs. 270/- per month. He has also denied the arrears of rent as well as dues of electricity charges by stating that the electricity charges have been paid month to month. However, the service of notice terminating the tenancy has been admitted. The Trial Court after exchange of pleadings has framed following issues. 1. Whether the defendant is a tenant @ 270/- per month or Rs. 150/- per month of the disputed accommodation? 2. Whether any amount is due from the defendant in respect of the electricity charges? 3. Whether the defendant has committed default in the payment of arrears of rent? 4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit? 5. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of cause of action as alleged in para 19 of the W.P. or whether the defendant is liable to pay Rs. 344.50 ps. as alleged to be printing charges due from the defendant? 6. Whether the notice determining the tenancy is illegal and ineffective? 7. Whether the defendant is entitled to the benefit of section 20(4) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972? 8. To what relief if any is the plaintiff entitled?;