Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Salil Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This is a tenant’s writ petition. Facing ejectment from property let out to him, pursuant to judgment dated 6.9.1994 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition), passed by Small Cause Court, Gorakhpur in S.C.C. Suit No. 6 of 1988 and judgment dated 31st August, 1999 (Annexure 9 to the writ petition) passed by Revisional Court i.e. Xth Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur dismissing petitioner’s revision No. 205 of 1994, he has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution with a prayer for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the aforesaid two judgments.

3. By way of amendment, petitioner has also assailed the order dated 23rd August, 1994 whereby application 81C for recall of order dated 15.10.1993 was rejected.

4. The dispute relates to house No. 2/47 situate at Mohalla Raghav Nagar, Deoria. Initially one Lallan Prasad was the owner of property in dispute. The petitioner claimed that Sri Lallan Prasad executed an agreement for sale, dated 8.9.1978, with Smt. Surati Devi, wife of petitioner (Sri Kailash Nath) for aforesaid house, pursuant whereto entire consideration was paid on 27th March, 1980. Thereafter a suit for specific performance i.e. O.S. No. 422 of 1986 (subsequently re-registered as O.S. No. 109 of 1988) was instituted by Smt. Surati Devi for execution of aforesaid agreement for sale. While the aforesaid suit was pending, owner of house in question namely Sri Lallan Prasad executed a sale-deed in favour of Agardi Mani Tripathi on 17.2.1987. In the circumstances, Smt. Surati Devi instituted suit No. 88 of 1987 for permanent injunction against Lallan Prasad as well as Agardi Mani Tripathi, restraining them from evicting her and petitioner from disputed building.

5. Both the suits instituted by Smt. Surati Devi i.e. O.S. No. 422 of 1986) (renumbered as 109 of 1988) and O.S. No. 88 of 1987 are still pending.

6. Sri Agardi Mani Tripathi (now deceased and substituted by his legal heirs i.e. respondent Nos. 3 to 6) instituted S.C.C. Suit No. 6 of 1988 claiming his title pursuant to sale-deed dated 17.2.1987 and sought ejectment of petitioner on the ground of default in payment of rent.

7. The Trial Court framed following nine issues:

^^1& D;k nksuks i{kksa ds chp edku ekfyd o fdjk;snkj dk laca/k gS\

2& D;k izfroknh us fdjk;k vnk djus esa pwd fd;k gS\

3& D;k izfroknh us edku ekfyd ds LokfeRo ls budkj fd;k gS\

4& D;k bl U;k;ky; dks ;g okn ns[kus dk vf/kdkj ugh gS\

5& D;k okn /kkjk 10 lh0ih0lh0 ds varxZr LFkfxr djus ;ksX; gS\

6& D;k ;g okn vko’;d i{kdkjksa ds u gksus ds dkj.k nwf"kr gS\

7& D;k ;g okn pyus ;ksX; ugh gS\

8& D;k oknh dks nkok nkf[ky djus dk vf/kdkj ugh gS\

9& oknh fdl vuqrks"k ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\^^

“1. Whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties?

2. Whether defendant has committed default in payment of rent?

3. Whether defendant had denied ownership of landlord?

4. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit?

5. Whether the suit is liable to be stayed under Section 10 C.P.C.?

6. Whether this suit is bad on account of non joinder of necessary parties?

7. Whether this suit is not maintainable?

8. Whether plaintiff has no right to institute this suit?

9. To what relief plaintiff is entitled for?” (English Translation by the Court)

8. Issues No. 4 and 5, considered as preliminary issues, were decided in negative i.e. against defendant i.e. petitioner, vide order dated 18th July, 1989 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition). The Trial Court held that there is no substantial dispute of title in the matter and therefore, Small Causes Court does not lack jurisdiction. It further held that non impleadment of Lallan Prasad, the erstwhile owner, in the suit in question, would not render it defective for non joinder of necessary party for the reason that Lallan Prasad was neither necess