IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the necessity to address objections regarding the maintainability of a revision before deciding on the merits, as mandated by the previous order.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Prakhar Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shivakant Singh, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside the order dated 19.12.2023 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Court No. 1, Kanpur Nagar in SCC Revision No. 240 of 2022 (Ram Kumar Gupta versus Piyush Shukla) whereby and whereunder, the revision has been allowed and the order dated 17.8.2022 passed by the learned Judge, Small Causes Court whereby deferring the consideration of the application under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC moved by the landlord/respondent after receipt of evidence at the time of final judgment has been set aside and direction has been issued to proceed with the suit only after deciding the application under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC.

3. The facts giving rise to the controversy involved between the parties lie in a narrow compass. The plaintiff/respondent has instituted a SCC Suit No. 280 of 2017 for ejectment of the tenant/petitioner and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation. The rate of rent alleged by the landlord/respondent in the plaint is Rs.1500/- per month. The tenant/petitioner has appeared in the suit proceedings and has filed his written statement on 27.10.2018. The landlord/respondent filed an application under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC alleging that the tenant/petitioner has committed default in the payment of extra rent and prayed for striking off the defence of the tenant/petitioner. The said application under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC was objected to by the tenant/petitioner by filing objections. In the objections, it was clearly stated that the suit was instituted on 9.11.2017. When the tenant/petitioner appeared in the proceedings, the suit was proceeding exparte against him. After recall of the order to proceed exparte, the tenant/petitioner on 31.8.2018 submitted the tender of Rs.57,250/- to be passed. The tender was passed on 27.9.2018 and the amount was deposited by the tenant/petitioner on 1.10.2018. It was also stated that the landlord/respondent had demanded rent from 1.2.2016 to 31.12.2018 i.e. 35 months. The rent works out to Rs.52,500/-. Interest @ 9% per annum works out to Rs.4,725/- total works out to Rs.57,225/- and a sum of Rs.57,250/- was got deposited. The plaintiff/respondent calculated the amount of interest on Rs.52,500/- incorrectly. The tenant/petitioner is also regularly depositing the monthly rent of Rs.1500/-.

4. The learned Judge, Small Causes Court vide its order dated 17.8.2022 being of the view that there was a dispute regarding the amount tendered, which could be adjudicated only after receipt of evidence of the parties deferred the consideration of the application under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC at the time of final decision of the suit.

5. The order dated 17.8.2022 was assailed in SCC Revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 by the landlord/respondent. The tenant/petitioner filed his objections to the maintainability of the revision itself on the ground that the order did not decide the application under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC and was interlocutory in nature and as such, the Revision under Section 25 was not maintainable. The Revisional Court ignoring the objection of the tenant/petitioner allowed the revision by the order dated 15.10.2022 and set aside the order dated 17.8.2022 and directed the Trial Court to first decide the application under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC and then, proceed with the SCC Suit. The order dated 15.10.2022 was put to challenge before this Court by the tenant/petitioner in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India No. 325 of 2023. This Court after hearing the counsels of the parties and taking note of the fact that the objections to the maintainability of the revision was not considered by the Revisional Court while allowing the revision, set aside the order dated 15.10.2022 passed in the revision and directed th