JUDGMENT V.K. Khanna, J. - This revision has been filed against the decision of issue No. 2 by the IXth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Agra in S.C.C. Suit No. 9 of 1984. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the impugned order and I am of the opinion that the view taken by the court below is correct. On the averments made by landlord the defendant was a tenant of the premises in dispute. Sri Virendra Singh, learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite party has made a categorical statement that the plaintiff's case is that the defendant is a tenant of the premises in dispute. The court below has rightly held that from the perusal of the written statement also it becomes clear that the defendant himself is taking up a case that he is a tenant and seeking protection of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. 3. For the reasons stated above, in my opinion, it is not a fit case in which it could be said that the court below has either committed an error of jurisdiction or committed a material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. The revision is accordingly dismissed with costs. 4. The suit is pending before the Judge, Small Causes Court since the year 1984. The Judge, Small Causes Court shall see that the suit is decided at the earliest. A certified copy of this order shall be given to the learned counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges within 48 hours.