Sudhir Agarwal, J.:— Sri V. M. Zaidi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for petitioner submitted that the Trial Court illegally rejected petitioners' application for consolidation of S. C. C. Suit No. 54 of 1990, subject matter of present writ petition, alongwith Regular Suit No. 188 of 1990 which was also pending in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Muzaffar Nagar and secondly, despite petitioners' further request of adjournment he declined to grant adjournment and had acted wholly illegally inasmuch as it has resulted in denial of opportunity to petitioners to lead evidence and, therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. He further submitted that petitioners' case was that respondents-tenants have committed default in payment of rent, and, in denial thereof the respondents-tenants did not adduce any evidence whatsoever, yet a finding has been recorded against petitioners, hence also the impugned orders are patently illegal. 2. In my view, none of the submissions have any substance. 3. It cannot be disputed that the suit in the present case was a small cause suit. The petitioners sought it to be consolidated with a regular suit which according to him was pending before same Civil Judge (Senior Division) who was also having the power to function as Small Cause Court. Section 33 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1887") clearly provides, when the same court exercises jurisdiction of Regular Civil Court as well as Small Cause Court, it shall be deemed to be different 'Court' for the purpose of Code of Civil Procedure as well as Act, 1887. Therefore, it cannot be said that simply because the Presiding Officer having jurisdiction on the regular side in the same court was invested with power of Small Cause Court, the two cases were pending in the same court or must be deemed to be pending in the same court. This submission ignores Section 33 of Act, 1887. The Trial Court, therefore, has rightly rejected application for consolidation of regular suit with small cause suit. 4. Further it has been observed by both the courts below that petitioners were given repeated opportunity to adduce evidence but failed to do so. This finding has not been shown perverse or contrary to record. 5. The Trial Court, therefore, has rightly rejected application for consolidation of regular suit with small cause suit. 4. Further it has been observed by both the courts below that petitioners were given repeated opportunity to adduce evidence but failed to do so. This finding has not been shown perverse or contrary to record. 5. Now coming to the next aspect that there was no evidence contrary lead by tenants to show payment of rent. This Court finds from the pleadings of tenants that after petitioners-landlords denied to accept rent, they (tenants) deposited rent under Section 30 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1972") in Misc. Case No. 130 of 1988 and had clearly pleaded so in para 30 to 34 of their written statement that there was no default on their part since they have paid entire amount of rent under Section 30 of Act, 1972 in Misc. Case No. 130 of 1988. There is nothing on record to show that petitioners adduce any evidence to contradict this pleading containing details of the " case in which amount of rent was paid by tenants. This fact has been noticed by courts below also in the impugned orders. Hence even this argument lacks any substance. 6. In view of above, in find no merit in the writ petition. Dismissed. 7. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Petition dismissed. _____________