Sangeeta Chandra, J.

Heard Sri Vishal Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashish Goyal, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner/tenant challenging the order dated 9.4.2018 passed by the District Judge, Hathras in SCC Revision No. 101 of 2018 and the order dated 9.3.2018 passed by the learned Trial Court in SCC Suit No. 7 of 2013 allowing the application under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code (herein after referred to as the 'CPC') moved by the landlord for conversion of the Suit into a regular Suit.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a tenant of the shop situated at Chaudhari Market, Malf Complex, Sadabad, Hathras at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month.

4. The landlord/respondent filed SCC Suit No. 1 of 2010 against the petitioner/tenant for eviction and it was alleged that rent had fallen into arrears. It was alleged in the plaint that the shop was let out on an oral agreement only and the tenancy was month to month. It was agreed that when the landlord would require the shop, the tenant would vacate it.

5. It was also stated that the provisions of U.P. Rent Control Act, 1972 are not applicable to the said shop as it was a new construction, and that since March 2009, the tenant had closed the shop and was not paying rent. A legal notice determining tenancy and asking for arrears of rent was given by the landlord on 29.9.2010 which was also served upon the tenant on 1.10.2010 and it was replied by him on 20.10.2010. In the reply to the notice, the tenant had alleged that the landlord had no right to determine the tenancy.

6. In the SCC Suit, the relief claimed was only for eviction of the tenant and handing over of possession of the shop through Court appointed Commissioner to the landlord. The only other relief that was claimed was for cost of litigation to be also directed to be paid by the tenant to the landlord.

7. The petitioner/tenant filed a written statement denying the contents of the plaint and alleging that legal notice given under Section 111(h) of the Transfer of Property Act by the landlord was illegal, as the landlord had given the shop in question to the tenant in 2007 and had taken Rs. 2,20,000/- as premium/Pagri with oral the agreement that as and when the tenant vacated the shop in question, he would be returned the amount of premium. It was alleged the tenant had always been paying the rent to the landlord and when the landlord refused to accept the same, he had also deposited the rent under Section 30 of the U.P. Rent Control Act before the Civil Judge (Junior Division). The shop was in the possession of the tenant since 2007 and he was doing his business of ready-made garments in the same and it had not remained closed since 2009 as alleged in the plaint. The notice given under Section 111(h) was illegal, instead, notice should have been given under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.

8. It was also alleged that the tenant looking into the malafide intention of the landlord had also filed Original Suit No. 31 of 2010 (Shafiq Uddin Vs. Mansoor Alam) for restraining the landlord from erecting the tenant except in accordance with law and therefore the trial of the SCC Suit should be stayed till the pendency of Original Suit No. 31 of 2010.

9. In the SCC Suit evidence was led by both the sides. Later on, an application was moved bearing paper no. 35-C(2), wherein it was stated that initially the SCC Suit was registered as SCC Suit No. 1/2010, but later on it was converted into a Regular Suit No. 7/2013by the Court concerned, and in the said Suit the same evidence/oral statements/affidavits was to be considered as evidence as in the SCC Suit.

10. The tenant filed an objection i.e. paper no. 36-C(2) saying that the said application was not maintainable. Originally the Suit was registered as SCC Suit, it had not been legally converted into an Original Suit on the regular side, and even if it were the evidence led by parties in