( 1 ) HEARD Sri K. K. Arora learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M. S. Haq for the contesting-respondents.

( 2 ) BY means of this writ petition a prayer has been made to quash the order dated 12. 2. 90 passed by respondent No. 1 in revision filed against the order of the trial court dated 30. 5. 88.

( 3 ) SINCE counter-affidavit has been filed, in the peculiar circumstances of the case this writ petition is disposed of finally at the admtsslon stage itself.

( 4 ) THE facts in brief are that the deceased respondent No. 3 filed suit for rent and ejectment against the petitioner and respondent No. 2 claiming that rent was due from 23. 9. 1983 which was not paid despite service of notice of demand and termination of tenancy. The petitioner is defendant No. 2 in the said suit and his defence was that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the plaintiff. According to his case, the owners of the disputed house were Mohd. Naseem and others and in one part of the property, the defendant No. 2 was the tenant. Mohd. Naseem filed Suit No. 137 of 1982 with the allegation that the entire property was under the tenancy of Hidayatullah which was deci