Rakesh Tiwari, J.;- Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. Late Ram Prakash Sharma, father of the tenants was tenant of house no. 7 ( old no. 66-A), Qazi Khera, Lal Bungalow, Kanpur (hereinafter referred as the house in dispute) on monthly rent of Rs.18/- since 1955. It appears that a notice was sent by the respondents to the petitioners by registered post through their counsel in which it has been stated that rent from 1.1.1996 to 30.11.1999 i.e. Rs.846/- is due which has not been paid. The tenants were instructed to pay the aforesaid amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice. This notice is claimed not to have been served upon the tenants. Thereafter, SCC Suit No. 33 of 2000 was filed by the respondents landlords in the court of Judge Small Causes Court, Kanpur for eviction of the tenants from the house in dispute. The suit was contested by the petitioners by filing their written statement denying the plaint allegations. The Judge Small Causes Court, Kanpur after considering the evidence of the parties on record vide judgment and order dated 19.1.2008 dismissed SCC Suit No. 33 of 2000. SCC Revision No. 21 of 2008 preferred by the landlords challenging the validity and correctness of the judgment and order dated 19.1.2008 of the Judge Small Causes Court, Kanpur was allowed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court no.7, Kanpur Nagar remanding the matter back to the court below with certain observations. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in fact notice has not been received by the petitioners terminating their tenancy and demanding arrears of rent due. According to him, service of notice is not at all proved by the respondents and that the entire dues in respect of arrears of rent etc. have also been paid. Be that as it may, this Court is not inclined to enter into the merits of the case as this writ petition has been filed against the remand order. According to him, service of notice is not at all proved by the respondents and that the entire dues in respect of arrears of rent etc. have also been paid. Be that as it may, this Court is not inclined to enter into the merits of the case as this writ petition has been filed against the remand order. The petitioners may argue any legal point in the suit before the court below which has been raised by them in this writ petition Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to any legal point being raised by the petitioners before the court below particularly to the decision on the point that the husband of the respondents landlords whether can pursue the matter and adduce evidence in this regard in view of Section 120 of the Evidence Act. The court below may also decide as to whether deposit of arrears of rent as provided under Section 21(3) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent And Eviction), Rules, 1972 have been made by the tenants in accordance with law or not. As this petition has been filed against a remand order and the matter is yet to be decided by the court below, no interference is called for in exercise of extra ordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.