Sudhir Narain, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 20.3.1997, passed by respondent No. 1, rejecting the review application filed by the petitioners. The facts in brief are that the plaintiff -respondent No. 3 filed suit No. 32 of 1985 in the court of Judge, Small Cause Nainital - -respondent No. 1 for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages for use and occupation of the disputed premises against the petitioners and respondents 4 and 5 on the ground that they committed default in payment of the arrears of rent and made material alteration in the demised premises. The petitioner filed written statement and they denied the allegations that they had committed any default in payment of arrears of rent or made any material alterations in the disputed premises. The trial court dismissed the suit on 7.9.1990. Respondent No. 3 filed S.C.C. Revision No. 52 of 1990. Respondent No. 1 allowed the revision on 25.9.1996 holding that the defendants had made material alterations in the building. It was admitted by them that they had made construction of latrine and bath room on the first floor which was of permanent character. The revisional Court held that such construction was in the frontage of the main building at the first floor and, therefore, it was also causing disfigurement of the building and reduced its utility and value. The petitioners filed writ petition No. 32901 of 1996.
(2.) IN the writ petition it was contended that the latrine and bath room were constructed by the petitioners on the back portion of the tenanted accommodation and not on the front portion as held by the revisional court. This Court took the view that it is a question of fact. If the revisional court has made an observation, its correctness can be ascertained by it as to whether the constructions are on the frontage of the main building at the first floor or it is in the back portion of the tenanted accommodation as held by the revisional court. The writ petition was disposed of with the following observation: In this view of the matter I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition with an observation that if so advised the petitioners may prefer a review petition before the revisional court and in case any review petition is filed within 15 days from today, the same shall be heard and disposed of on merits within a period of two months of its presentation and during this period the operation of the revisional judgment shall remain stayed. The petition is disposed of accordingly. The petitioner filed an application for review of the judgment of the revisional court dated 11.10.1996. The application has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 20.3.1997 on the ground that the petitioners failed to comply with the provisions of Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(3.) I have heard Sri R.S. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned counsel for the respondents.;