Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer for quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 31.1.2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 15, Meerut in S.C.C. Revision No. 38 of 2000, Dinesh Kumar v. Smt. Krishna Rani and another, and also against the judgment and order dated 27.1.2000 passed by the Additional Judge Small Causes Court, Meerut, respondent No. 2 in S.C.C. Case No. 133 of 1997, Smt. Krishna Rani and another v. Dinesh Kumar.

3. Smt. Krishna Rani and Sri Raisuddin plaintiff-respondents No. 3 and 4 filed S.C.C. Case No. 133 of 1997 against the petitioner for arrears of rent since 15.11.89 and ejectment from the shop No. 295/2, Sector-2, Scheme No. 7, Shastri Nagar, Meerut (hereinafter referred as the house in question) which was constructed in the year 1986. The house tax of the house in question was decided on 1.4.1992 for the first time and the shop in question was given on rent to the petitioner allegedly on 5.4.1989.

4. The house in question was for economically weaker sections and was purchased from U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad by Sri Raisuddin allegedly in fully constructed position under the allotment order dated 22.3.1984 and was thereafter sold to Smt. Krishna Rani plaintiff No. 1 through registered agreement deed dated 11.6.1984.

5. Suit No. 35 of 1994 was filed by Sri Raisuddin inter alia, that shop in question is of 1995, hence the provisions of the Rent Act are not applicable. The case of Sri Raisuddin plaintiff No. 2 in suit No. 35 of 1994 was that the shop in question was of 1995 and the relationship of landlord and tenant was specifically denied as Smt. Krishna Rani was stated to be the landlord as such subsequent suit was filed by Smt. Krishna Rani and Sri Raisuddin being suit No. 133 of 1997.

6. The Counsel for the petitioner contends that in para 4 of the plaint the construction of shop in question is stated to be of year 1986 and assessed to house tax with effect from 1.4.1992. He submits that it was claimed by the plaintiffs that the period of limitation is to be counted from the date of assessment of house tax and not from the date of construction of shop, although it was admitted by her in her plaint that the construction of shop in question was of the year 1986.

7. It is urged by the Counsel for the petitioner that the Additional Judge Small Causes Court did not consider the admission of the plaint and incorrectly held that the whole rent has not been deposited on the first date of hearing. It is also urged that the trial Court wrongly held that the service of notice was sufficient by misreading and misinterpreting the evidence on record regarding absence of petitioner from the shop in dispute since 22.4.1997 to 27.4.1997 and that earlier suit filed by Sri Raisuddin as not being filed by Smt. Krishna Rani although it was on the same facts and grounds and the relief.

8. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 27.1.2000 of the Additional Judge Small Causes Court, Meerut the petitioner filed revision before the District Judge, Meerut wherein it has been stated that the petitioner specifically pressed ground regarding service on the petitioner, applicability of the Rent Act and the payment of rent on the first date of hearing apart from taking ground of admission of construction of the shop in question in 1986.

9. The Revisional Court also dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner confirming the judgment of the Court below regarding non-applicability of the Rent Act on the basis of house tax being fixed for the first time on 1.4.92.

10. Aggrieved by the order of the Revisional Court the petitioner has come up in this writ petition on the grounds that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate and consider that the shop in question could not fetch more than of Rs. 3,00/- as rent per month which the petitioner claims that he was always ready and willing to pay to the landlady. The i