Hon’ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.—Heard Sri S.K. Kalia, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Shanker Singh, for the petitioner and Sri Subhash Vidyarthi, for respondents-3 to 7.

2. The writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders of Judge, Small Cause Court (respondent-2) dated 28.5.2014, rejecting the application (191-C) dated 18.9.2013, application (198-C) dated 15.1.2014 under Section 23 of Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887, and application (205-C) dated 10.4.2014, for referring the issue for deciding the nature of the rented accommodation, under Section 331-A of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 to Assistant Collector, filed by the petitioner, in SCC Suit No. 7 of 2003 and District Judge (respondent-1) dated 18.7.2014, dismissing the revision of the petitioner and enhancing mesne profit and directing the trial Court to proceed in the suit on day to day basis and decide it within two months.

3. Shanti Devi and others (respondents-3 to 7) (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) filed a suit (registered as SCC Suit No. 7 of 2003), for ejectment of the petitioner from the premises described in paragraph-2 of the plaint and for mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per day. It has been stated in the plaint that Ram Lal and Munna Lal (now represented by the plaintiffs) were owner and landlord of the premises, situated over plots 63 and 64 of village Sahjani, tahsil and district Unnao, which consists of factory building, bungalow, godown, quarters, well and open vacant land of the area 2-1/2 bigha. Previous owners let out the premises to Smt. Gomati Devi (the defendant) through lease deed dated 18.12.1970 (registered on 22.12.1970) on the monthly rent of Rs. 1200/-. The lease was initially for a period up to 30.9.1980, with a clause of renewal for a further period up to September 1990 with the consent of the parties on same rent. Although, terms of the lease came to an end on 30.9.1990 but the defendant is continuing in possession of the premises in dispute with the consent of the plaintiffs. The defendant is not paying rent and is defaulter since November, 1997. The plaintiffs gave a registered notice to the defendant on 16.9.2003 asking her to give arrears of rent and vacate the premises in dispute but she through her reply dated 26.9.2003, denied the title of the plaintiffs and refused to give arrears of rent and vacate the premises. As such the suit was filed.

4. The petitioner filed her written statement on 25.11.2004 and contested the suit. It has been stated by the petitioner that apart from plaintiffs, daughters of Ram Lal and Munni Lal had also inherited buildings of the premises in dispute and they did not join as the plaintiffs in the suit and the suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. Rent had been paid time to time to the plaintiffs through bank drafts up to month of October, 2003. Provisions of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 are applicable on the premises in dispute and the defendant in compliance of Section 20 (4) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 deposited entire amount claimed in the suit. After taking the premises in dispute on rent, the defendant had invested huge amount in it. Even on the allegations of the plaintiffs that the premises in dispute was let out for factory purposes, the suit under the provisions of Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 is not maintainable and the suit is liable to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. The defendant admitted execution of the agreement dated 18.12.1970 and stated that according to the terms of the lease deed six months prior notice was required to be given. After service of the notice dated 16.9.2003, the plaintiffs accepted rent of October, 2003 as such notice shall be deemed to have been waived. The suit has been mala fide filed to harass the defendant. Written Statement was amended and paragraph-18-A was added in it claiming her title over the premises in dispute.

5. The petitioner moved an ap