( 1 ) THE landlord-respondent filed suit for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is defaulter in the payment of rent and taxes etc. The petitioner contested the suit denying the allegations made by the plaintiff-respondent. The Judge Small Causes Court decreed the suit on the finding that the petitioner has committed default in payment of arrears of rent. The petitioner preferred revision against the said order. During the pendency of revision he filed an application for amendment of written statement taking two legal pleas referred to in paragraphs 22-A to 22-F in the written statement. This amendment application was allowed on 7. 5. 1999. The petitioner subsequently filed an application that additional issues be framed and either such issues may be remitted or the case may be remanded. Respondent No. 1 has rejected the said application by the impugned order dated 9. 12. 1999.

( 2 ) SRI Rajesh Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that once the amendment application was allowed, it was incumbent upon the revisional court to have framed the issues and decide the matter. The Court had allowed the amendment application on the legal pleas which were raised by the petitioner. The amendments which were allowed are in respect of paragraphs 22-A to 22-F. They read as under :-"para No. 22-A. That the present suit is hit and barred by Section 15 read with Schedule II of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act. Para No. 22-B. That this Honble Court lacks inherent jurisdiction to try the present suit. Para No. 22-C. That the suit is hit and barred for want of pre-requisite ingredients and the mandatory provisions of law as required by the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 and the present suit as such is not legally maintainable and this Honble Court has no jurisdiction to exercise any jurisdiction and to grant any such relief as claimed by the plaintiff in the plaint of the present suit. The present suit is bad in view of the mandatory provisions of law contained under Section 20 of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. Para No. 22-D. That the present suit is also hit and barred by Sections 11,13 and 16 of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. Para No. 22-E. That this Honble Court lacks inherent jurisdiction to try the present suit. Para No. 22-F. That the suit is also hit and barred for want of legal and valid notice under Section 20 of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 as well as Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. "

( 3 ) THESE are all legal pleas and can be decided by the revisional court itself. It is not necessary for these legal pleas the revisional court should frame additional issues and remit the issues to the Judge Small Causes Court and secondly it is not necessary in small cause court suit to frame issues.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision in Sri Khalique Ahmad Siddiqui v. The VI Additional district Judge, Bareilly and others, where a regular suit was decreed for specific performance on a First Appeal being filed, an application for amendment of the written statement was filed, the appellate court allowed the amendment application and framed five additional issues and one of them was on question of fact and in those circumstances the court directed the parties to lead evidence and directed to refer issue No. 5 framed by him to the court below under Order 41, Rule 25 of Code of Civil Procedure and to require the trial court to decide such issues. This case has no application to the facts of the present case.

( 5 ) THIS is a Small Cause Court Suit. The revisional court could not have been permitted amendment of the written statement at the revisional stage on a question -of fact. The revisional court, in fact, has not permitted any party to raise any question of facts but on legal pleas.

( 6 ) IN view of the above I do not find it is a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitu