ANJANI KUMAR, J. - (1.) THE petitioner -tenant, by means of this writ petition, has challenged the orders dated 1.2.2005 and 14.1.2004 passed by respondents 1 and 2 respectively.
(2.) THE brief facts are that the respondent -landlord filed a suit for ejectment and recovery of rent from the petitioner being S.C.C. Suit No. 3 of 2000 on the ground that the petitioner has not paid any rent after January, 1993, therefore, the petitioner is defaulter and is liable for eviction. The respondent -landlord determined the tenancy of the petitioner by means of registered notice dated 4th November, 1996. The petitioner tenant contested the aforesaid suit on the ground that he is not the defaulter and further that respondent, Baij Nath is not the sole landlord but the said house is owned by Sri Baij Nath and his brother Jagannath jointly. Further contention of the petitioner -tenant is that by virtue of agreement of tenancy dated 31st March, 1992 two rooms etc. on the ground floor was given on monthly rent of Rs. 200 and the same tenancy is still continuing. It is also the case of petitioner -tenant that the tenancy is coming down not from 1992 but before 1975. During the pendency of the suit before the trial court the respondent -landlord filed an application with the prayer that paragraph 2 of the plaint may be replaced by paragraph 2 proposed in the amendment application. This application is contested by the petitioner -tenant on the ground that this amounts to withdrawal of admission already made and further after amendment is allowed it will change the nature of the suit itself. Therefore, amendment application is liable to be dismissed. The trial court by its order dated 14th January, 2004 allowed the amendment application filed by the respondent -landlord on the payment of cost on the ground that it has not changed the nature of the suit. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner -tenant preferred a revision before the District Judge, Varanasi purported to be under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure. This revision has been dismissed by the revisional court on the ground that no interference is required under Section 115(1)(a) of Code of Civil Procedure in view of the fact that the order allowing the amendment application does not amount to case decided in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the decision in 2002 ACJ 119. Before this Court learned Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the revisional court but has conceded that no revision lies under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 14th January, 2004. The suit in question being suit of small causes the revision, if at all lies, it lies under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. Therefore, the revisional court's order does not require any interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of the fact that the petitioner has not availed the remedy of filing revision as contemplated under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act this writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy to the petitioner itself but even on merits the order dated 14th January, 2004, being interlocutory in nature does not warrant interference by this Court by means of this writ petition in view of settled law that normally this Court do not interfere with the interlocutory orders. In this view of the matter this writ is liable to be dismissed on this ground also apart from that learned Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that there is any error so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India particularly in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675.
(3.) IN view of the above discussion this writ petition has no force. It is accordingly dismissed.;