Abhinava Upadhya, J.— Facts of both these cases are same, therefore, are being decided by this common judgment. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.3.2013 passed in SCC Suit No. 25 of 2010. An SCC Suit No. 6 of 1990 was filed by the petitioner for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent. The suit was decreed on 28.8.2010. Being aggrieved the respondents filed a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 which was registered as Revision No. 25 of 2010. In the said revision an amendment application was filed by the respondents which was rejected by the court below holding that the amendment is to be sought at the final stage of the hearing of the revision and the matter is being pending for the past 22 years. That order was challenged by the respondents and this Court rejected the writ petition of the respondents being Writ Petition No. 11333 of 2012 (Sikandar Vs. Additional District Judge Court No. 4 and another). The operative portion of the order is quoted below : "The impugned order, therefore, does not call for any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner has succeeded in delaying the delivery of judgment. The Revisional Court shall make all endeavours to decide the Revision expeditiously. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed." It appears that thereafter another amendment application was filed by the petitioner which was rejected then yet another amendment application was filed which was also rejected by the revisional court. Then an application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. for additional evidence was filed which was allowed by order dated 13.8.2012. That order was challenged by the petitioner and this Court in Writ Petition No. 49072 of 2012 stayed the operation of the said order. It is claimed by the petitioner that this Court vide order dated 2.3.2012 directed the court below that the matter be decided expeditiously as earlier as possible, but the revisional court took the stand that since the operation of the order allowing the application under Order 41 Rule 27 has been stayed so it would be appropriate to not to proceed further with the proceedings. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this was the precise reason because of this the earlier writ petition being Writ Petition No. 11333 of 2012, which was filed by the respondents, was dismissed and for the similar reason the interim order was granted in Writ Petition No. 49072 of 2012 for early disposal of the proceedings as the matter has remained pending for the past 22 years. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner at this belated stage the asking for filing of additional evidence is a mala fide intent and only for the reason to delay the proceeding. I have heard the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Nipun Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. According to Shri Nipun Singh the additional evidence which is being sought to be brought on record is germane to the dispute and would help the court in proper adjudication of the matter. According to him by this document he would be able to prove that the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 is fully applicable in the matter and the suit could not have been proceeded with at the way it is and the court below was totally justified in allowing the application. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in 2001 (10) SCC 619 to assert that the application under Order 41 Rule 27 ought not to be rejected and the additional evidence required to be filed should be considered at the time of final disposal of the matter. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also looking into the conduct of the respondents that during the entire course of trial such a document could not be produced even thereafter several amendment applications were moved before the court below and in none of these applications such a document was sought to be brought on record. Now at the fag-end of proceeding when the revision is to be finally decided, such a document is being brought forward does not indicate the good intention of the petitioner. Now at the fag-end of proceeding when the revision is to be finally decided, such a document is being brought forward does not indicate the good intention of the petitioner. It is claimed that from the very beginning the ground was taken that the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 is applicable, but to corroborate the aforesaid statement these two additional documents are required to be considered. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid documents should be accepted as additional evidence because the petitioner could have brought on record the said documents at initial stage itself. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the tenant was ignorant of law and, therefore, he could not bring such a relevant material earlier. At this belated stage ignorance of law cannot be pleaded in defence. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the court below cannot be sustained and it is set aside with the direction to the court below to proceed with the matter and decide the same expeditiously preferably within a period of four month from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the court below. Subject to the aforesaid, both the writ petitions are allowed. _____________