- (1.) S. P. Mehrotra, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for quashing the order dated 9-8-2002 (Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition) and the order dated 30-9-2002 (Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition ).
(2.) BY amendment in the writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, sought quashing of the order dated 13-7-2001 (Annexure No. 1 to the affidavit accompanying the amendment application) and the order dated 27-8-2001 (Annexure No. 2 to the affidavit accompanying the amendment application ). The dispute relates to an accommodation in the house in question situated on Kasia Road, Deoria, the details whereof have been given in the plaint of the suit referred to herein after. The said accommodation has hereinafter been referred as "the disputed accommodation". The petitioner has, inter alia, filed in the writ petition the following: (1) Supplementary affidavit sworn on 30-1-2003. The said supplementary affidavit has hereinafter been referred to as " The First Supplementary Affidavit". (2) Amendment application supported by an affidavit sworn on 30-1- 2003. The said amendment application was allowed on 24-2-2003. (3) Second Supplementary Affidavit sworn on 23-2-2003. (4) Third Supplementary Affidavit sworn on 26-2-2003 filed which is taken on record. From the allegations made in the writ petition and the affidavits filed on behalf of the petitioner, it appears that the respondent No. 3 filed a Suit against the petitioner for ejectment, arrears of rent etc. , in respect of the disputed accommodation. It was, inter alia, alleged by the respondent No. 3 that the respondent No. 3 was the owner and landlord of the house in question; and that the respondent No. 3 had purchased the said house in question from its previous owner Smt. Kishori Devi by sale deed dated 15-4-1974; and that the petitioner was the tenant of the disputed accommodation in the house in question at a monthly rent of Rs. 27. 50; and that the petitioner paid rent up to April 1983; and that the petitioner did not pay rent after April, 1983 despite demand; and that the respondent No. 3 through his counsel sent notice on 28-9-1989 to the petitioner under Section 20 of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (In short "the Act") and Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act which was received by the petitioner; and that the petitioner gave incorrect reply of the said notice. The said Suit was registered as S. C. C. Suit No. 88 of 1989. Copy of the plaint of the said Suit has been filed as Annexure No. 1 to the Writ Petition.
(3.) THE petitioner contested the said Suit and filed written statement, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure No. 2 to the Writ Petition. It further appears that during the pendency of the said Suit, the respondent No. 3 filed an application No. 14-Ga under Order XV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, inter alia, praying for striking off the defence of the petitioner on the ground that the rent for the period from August, 1989 to January 1990, admitted by the petitioner to be due, had not been deposited by the petitioner.;