R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) BY means of this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 13.7.1993 passed by the trial court (Judge Small Causes Court) decreeing the suit for ejectment and recovery of rent and order dated 20.8.1996 passed by the revisional court dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 13.7.1993. The facts which are relevant for the purposes of resolving the controversy involved in the case are that the suit was filed by respondent No. 3 mainly for ejectment and recovery of rent on the ground of default and material alteration. The suit was contested by the petitioner, who has pleaded that he did not commit default in payment of rent and was also entitled to the benefit of sub -section (4) of Section 20 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, for short 'the Act', that the notice of demand and termination of tenancy served upon him was illegal. It was also pleaded that he never damaged the building in question and the suit was bad for non -joinder of necessary party and that the Judge Small Causes Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
(2.) THE trial court has framed as many as 7 issues on the basis of pleading of the parties: On material issues the findings were returned in favour of respondent No. 3 and the suit was decreed. The petitioner filed a revision against the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. The revisional court also upheld the findings recorded by the trial court and dismissed the revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the part of the relief prayed for by respondent No. 3 i.e. recovery of damages for causing loss to the property Rs. 2,000/ - was cognizable only by the civil court, the Judge Small Causes Court, therefore, had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and to decree the same. It was also urged that the notice served upon the petitioner was illegal and invalid, on the basis of the same the suit could not be filed. The orders passed by the courts below were, therefore, liable to be quashed.
(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the record.;