Hon’ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.—Heard Shri Ashutosh Sharma, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner and Sri Manish Tandon, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents.

2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying to set aside the impugned order dated 26.9.2017 in S.C.C. Suit No. 319 of 1991 (Smt. Rijwan Amra and another v. Mohd. Mustahsan Siddiqui) passed by the Judge Small Causes Court, Kanpur Nagar and the order dated 15.12.2017 in S.C.C. Revision No. 117 of 2017 (Mohd. Mustahsan Siddiqui v. Smt. Rijwan Amra and another) passed by the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar. A further prayer has been made for a direction to decide Amedment application dated 13.7.2017 being paper No. 226C/4 on merits.

FACTS :

3. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the plaintiffs-respondents are the owner and landlord of house No. 97/215A, Talak Mohal, Kanpur Nagar. Its first assessment was made on 1.4.1987. The defendant-petitioner is a tenant of a shop situate in the aforesaid house. The plaintiffs-respondents terminated the tenancy of the defendant-petitioner by a notice dated 16.5.1991 and also demanded arrears of rent and taxes. However, neither the arrears were paid nor the disputed shop was vacated and as such the plaintiffs-respondents filed S.C.C. Suit No. 319 of 1991(Smt. Rijwan Amra and another v. Mohd. Mustahsan Siddiqui) in the Court of Judge Small Cause Court, Kanpur Nagar, which was dismissed by judgment dated 12.11.1997 on the finding that the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Act No. 13 of 1972, are applicable in respect of the dispute house.

4. Aggrieved with this judgment, the plaintiffs-respondents filed S.C.C. Revision No. 236 of 1997, which was dismissed by judgment dated 28.5.1998.

5. Against the aforesaid two judgments, the plaintiffs-respondents filed Writ-A No. 25576 of 1998 (Smt. Rizwan Amra and another v. VIIth Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar and others), which was allowed by order dated 8.7.2010 as under:

“Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This petition by the landlord is directed against concurrent orders by which his suit for arrears of rent and eviction has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

The petitioner-landlord instituted SCC suit No. 319 of 1991 inter alia with the allegation that by partition the petitioners came in possession of plot No. 97/315A where they made new constructions of 12 shops out of which in one shop the respondent was a tenant at the rate of Rs. 250 per month but he defaulted in payment of rent therefore he was liable for eviction as the same was not paid despite notice and Uttar Pradesh Act No. XIII of 1972 (here-in-after referred to as the Act) was not applicable since the shops were assessed for the first with effect from 1.4.1987.

The respondent-tenant contested the suit on the allegation that he was a tenant of an old shop which was earlier let out to one Abdul Razzak and since he has deposited the entire amount, he is not liable for eviction.

The trial Court after framing three issues including with regard to applicability of the Act, found that the Act was inapplicable as the shop was assessed for the period 1978-87 and since amounts have been paid, he was entitled to protection of Section 20 (4) of the Act. The said judgment was affirmed by the appellate Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that from the replication, statement of the tenant and the two assessments orders it is clear that assuming that the shop was in existence, there was substantial addition to it and therefore in view of Section 2 (2) (C) of the Act, the date of completion would be the date of the substantial addition to the building.

It is apparent from the record that upon filing of the written statement, denying that all the shops were constructed after 1981, the petitioner filed his application categorically stating that there was a tin shed hotel which was demolished and a new shop was raised and earlier th