B.C. Varma, Ag. C.J. – 1. The petitioners invokes the power of superintendence of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 19.10.89 passed by the District Judge, Bhopal, in Civil Revision No. 136 of 1989 (Annexure-A), whereby the learned District Judge allowed the revision and set aside the trial Court's order dated 27.7.1989. The result is that the petitioner-defendant is precluded from leading evidence on the issue of arrears of rent, although evidence was to be led for the limited purpose of contesting the quantum of rent arrears allegedly due and adjustment claimed by him.

2. The suit by the respondent-plaintiff Satish Chandra was for the eviction of the petitioner-tenant, based on the ground envisaged under section 12(1)(a) and (e) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. The defence was that there were no arrears of rent due against the petitioner. He claimed adjustment for the amount spent by him on repairs of the premises, for taxes paid, advances made towards rent, expenses of electric fittings, water charges, etc. It was denied that there were any arrears of rent. The proceedings went on and ultimately the petitioner-defen