O.N.KHANDELWAL, J. - (1.) THE tenant Ram Singh (after his death during the pendency of this writ petition, his heirs have been brought on record) had filed this writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 06-12-1996 passed by VIth Additional District Judge, Barabanki (as contained in Annexure No. 7) in SCC Revision No. 5 of 1994 Laxmi Narain Singh v. Ram Singh and another whereby the case was remanded for trial after allowing the amendment in the plaint.
(2.) THE landlord-opposite party No. 2 filed SCC suit No. 79 of 1983 for eviction of his tenant Ram Singh and sub-tenant Chandrika Prasad on the grounds mentioned in Section 2 of U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The petitioner-tenant denied the allegations of subletting and default in payment of rent. It was specifically pleaded that opposite party No 3 has no concern with the shop in dispute nor this premises has been sublet to him. Service of notice was also denied. The landlord filed his replication asserting the averments made in the plaint. The trial court after recording evidence of the parties came to the conclusion that neither the case of sub-tenancy nor the case of default was proved and, therefore, suit for eviction was dismissed on 16-02-1994. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court, the landlord-plaintiff (opposite party No. 2) filed SCC Revision No. 5 of 1994 under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. During the pendency of the revision, the landlord-opposite party No. 2 moved an application for amendment of plaint claiming that property belonged to a trust which is religious and charitable, therefore, the same is exempted from the operation of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in view of insertion of clause (bb) in Section 2, sub-section (1). Inspite of the objections raised by the petitioner-tenant, amendment application was allowed, additional issues were framed and the case has been remanded to the trial court for hearing the matter in the light of the issues framed on account of amended plea. The same order has been challenged by filing this writ petition.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.;