Hon’ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J.—By means of the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 23.1.2016 passed by the Additional District judge, Court No. 1, Pilibhit in Small Causes Case No. 03 of 2013 (Haq Nawaz Ahmad v. Abdul Ahmad). Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are :

2. The SCC case No. 03 of 2013 under Section 20(2) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 has been filed for eviction of the defendants on the ground of default in payment of rent and demanding arrears of rent. Written statement was filed by the petitioner on 8.4.2013, the suit has proceeded for evidence. At the stage of evidence an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed on 3.11.2015 with a prayer to amend the written statement. The Court below has rejected the application on 23.1.2016 on the ground that the amendment has been sought in order to delay the proceedings and to avoid cross-examination of the plaintiff. It is further recorded by the Court below that by means of the amendment the petitioner seeks to withdraw the admission made by him in the written statement. Aggrieved by this order the present petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that there was no bar for the defendant to withdraw his admission, the amendment in the written statement stands on a different footing than the amendment in the plaint. The delay cannot be taken as a ground for refusal of prayer for amendment in the written statement. The amendment was necessary for deciding the real controversy between the parties in suit and moreover no prejudice will cause to the plaintiff on account of the amendment sought by the petitioner. The question of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is the real issue to be decided by the Court below. The suit is at the stage of evidence and as such the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not attracted. The plaintiff has enough opportunity to rebut the evidence led by the defendant.

4. He further submits that the rejection of the amendment application may not come in the way of the petitioner in raising the dispute regarding relationship of landlord and tenant at the time of final hearing in the suit. The tenant can resile from the relationship at any stage of the suit and for this reason the amendment could not have been rejected. Reliance is placed upon the judgement of Apex Court in Usha Balashaheb Swami and others v. Kiran Apaso Swami and others, AIR 2007 SC 1663(1) and Sushil Kumar Jain v. Manoj Kumar and another, AIR 2009 SC 2544, in support of his above noted submission.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent urged that the rejection of amendment application is a “case decided” within the meaning of Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 which is akin to Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. The rejection of amendment application refusing to allow the tenant to deny the landlord-tenant relationship is for the reason that the tenant cannot withdraw his admission in the written statement at the stage of evidence. On the issue of landlord-tenant relationship, now principle of estoppel would apply as the landlord-tenant relationship is established from the admission of the defendant in the written statement. The order of rejection of the amendment application, therefore, resulted in deciding the issue of landlord-tenant relationship between the parties, which would come within the meaning of expression “case decided” under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act.

6. Against such order, only a revision is maintainable under the said provision. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable as such. Reliance is placed upon the judgement of Apex Court in Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society v. M/s. Swaraj Developers and others, 2003 (3) AWC ; wherein it is held that wherein an order in favour of the parties applying