Ran Vijay Singh, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Siddharth, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vivek Saran, learned counsel for respondent no. 3.
(2.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 18.7.2013 passed by the District Judge, Meerut in SCC Revision No. 15/2013 and order dated 14.5.2013 passed by Judge, Small Causes Court, Meerut in SCC Suit No. 1 of 1999. Vide order dated 14.5.2013, the amendment application of the petitioners has been rejected by the learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Meerut, whereas by the subsequent order dated 18.7.2013, the revision filed by the petitioners has been dismissed.
(3.) It appears, the respondent has filed SCC Suit No. 1 of 1999 in the Small Causes Court for decree of dispossession shown by the letters 'Aa', 'Ba', 'Sa' and 'Da' situated in Bungalow no. 114, Kariappa Road under the tenancy of the petitioners (defendants) and also for recovery for Rs. 3,288 towards house tax, Rs. 91.25 water tax and damages of Rs. 519. 25 per month on the ground that the tenants are defaulters of payment of rent and they have not vacated the premises despite notice. The written statement was filed on 13.3.1999. It appears that on 6.5.2013, the petitioners (defendants) filed an amendment application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for the following amendment: "That in the tenancy of the defendants about 1500 square feet land and the tin shaded room area 15-20 square feet shown by the letters 'Aa', 'Ba', 'Sa' and 'Da' has continued. Therefore, the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13/72 do not apply to the tenanted portion and the present Suit is not within the jurisdiction of this Court and deserves to be dismissed.";