SATISH CHANDRA,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Nirmal Tiwari, learned counsel for the revisionists.
(2.) THE revisionists and the opposite parties have entered into an agreement of tenancy in respect of the premises in question at a monthly rent of Rs.1170/- as per English Calendar. The period has already expired as the agreement was executed on 19.06.1991. The regular suit no. 319 of 2001 is pending in the Civil Court (Junior Division), Lucknow. The opposite party has also filed a suit in small causes court for arrears of rent, eviction and mense profit against the revisionists. In the present revision, the revisionists have come against the order dated 28.05.2009 passed in SCC Suit No. 57 of 2001 where the application of the revisionists was rejected. Small Causes Court has already given the finding in its order in paragraph 13 where it was observed "the Court of Civil Judge (JD) South Lucknow is not competent to grant relief of ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent and Mense Profit. In regular suit no. 319 of 2001 it has to be considered whether mandatory injunction can be granted in favour of defendants or not and whether defendants have exercised their option as provided in Lease Deed. In this case, it has to be considered that due to termination of tenancy in respect of disputed shop, defendants are liable to be evicted from disputed property and plaintiff is entitled to recover arrears of rent and Mense profit from defendants. Merely, on the ground that parties of both suits and properties are the same proceedings of this case cannot be stayed under Section 10 CPC." There is nothing wrong in the above mentioned order. Hence, the revision filed by the revisionists has no merit. It is accordingly, dismissed.;