- (1.) A. K. Yog, J. A suit, being Suit No. 57 of 1973, for ejectment was filed by petitioners before Judge, Small Cause Court, Varanasi and the same was decreed vide judgment and order dated 6-2-1976 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition ). The case of the plaintiff was that Arjun Prasad (Respondent No. 3) was tenant in the shop at Rs. 20 per month. He failed to pay arrears of rent since August 22, 1971 to December 21, 1971 which were not deposited in spite of notice. The said tenant had sublet the accommodation to one Gopal (Opp. Party No. 2 ).
(2.) FEELING aggrieved the tenant filed revision under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Act (Registered as Revision No. 44 of 1976 ). The said revision was allowed by Vth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Varanasi (Annexure-2 ). In para 6 of the writ petition it has been stated that above mentioned judg ment of Vth Addl. District Judge and Sessions Judge (Annexure-2) was set aside vide judgment and order dated 20th December, 1976 passed by this Court in revision. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has produced a copy of the said judgment and order dated 20-12-1979 passed in Civil Revision No. 1609 of 1978, Said judgment of High Court dated 20-12-1979 was set aside by the Supreme Court vide judgment and order dated March 13,1980 (Annexure-3) on the ground that the second revision was noi maintainable and hence the order of the High Court dated December 20,1979 was without jurisdic tion. The Supreme Court in its order, how ever, in the circumstance of the case directed that "we give liberty to the respondents to file a petition for the is suance of writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court which shall take into consideration the question of condoning the delay liberally". In the aforesaid facts, the present writ petition has been filed by the landlord challenging the order dated 25-1-1978 passed by IVth Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Varanasi (Annexure-2) shows that the Court below has not ex ceeded in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 25, Provincial Small Cause Court Act. It has acted as if it was exercising jurisdiction as trial Court. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a decision reported in 1996 (2) Allahabad Rent Cases 532-Om Prakash Gupta v. V Addl. District and Ses sions Judge, Aligarh and Another. and other cases reported in 1996 (2) Allahabad Rent Cases 561-Man Mohan Dixit v. Addl. District Judge Jalaun at Oral and Others. , Special Judge (B. C. Act), Learned Counsel has also placed reliance on the decision reported in 1995 (2) A. R. C. 436, Rafat Ali Khan v. District Judge, Banda. Similar views have been taken as in the case of Om Prakash Gupta (supra ).
(3.) I find no reason to disagree with the above decisions. -The question involved in the case, according to the revisional Court itself, was whether or not the defen dant/revisionist had, at any point of time, been recognised and treated as a chief tenant. The Revisional Court in its judgment (Annexure-2) observed that "ob viously, the crux of the problem round the determination whether or not the defen dant revisionist had at any point of time been recognised and treated as a chief tenant by the landlord Ram Das. ";