JUDGMENT : SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the defendant-petitioner praying to set aside the order dated 27.1.2017, passed by the District Judge, Kasganj in S.C.C. Revision No. Nil of 2017, Naeem Ahmad v. Roop Kishore Chandak and others, and the order dated 22.12.2016 in S.C.C. Suit No. 06 of 2015, passed by the Civil Judge (S.D.)/Small Causes Court, Kasganj. 3. By the impugned order dated 22.12.2016, the application of the defendant-petitioner under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. was rejected on the ground that against an order dated 5.11.2016, rejecting application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. filed earlier, the defendant-petitioner has filed S.C.C. Revision No. 04 of 2010 which is pending and impugned order is interlocutory in nature and as such revision is not maintainable. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a revision under Section 115 was maintainable against the order dated 22.12.2016 rejecting the application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the District Judge, Kasganj, is not sustainable and deserves to be set aside. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. From own application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. of the petitioner being paper No. 37 C rejected by the impugned order dated 22.12.2016, it appears that the disputed shop was let out by the respondent-plaintiff to the petitioner-defendant. The respondent-plaintiff had filed S.C.C. case No. 06 of 2015 for eviction of the petitioner-defendant and recovery of arrears of rent. The said case was filed after due notice to the petitioner-defendant by which tenancy was also terminated. The petitioner-defendant has filed written statement on 14.10.2015. Thus undisputedly the respondents-plaintiffs are landlord and the petitioner-defendant is tenant of the disputed shop. 7. The said case was filed after due notice to the petitioner-defendant by which tenancy was also terminated. The petitioner-defendant has filed written statement on 14.10.2015. Thus undisputedly the respondents-plaintiffs are landlord and the petitioner-defendant is tenant of the disputed shop. 7. Earlier an application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. being paper No. 32 C was filed by the petitioner-defendant which was rejected by the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.)/Judge Small Causes Court, Kasganj by order dated 5.11.2016 observing as under: ^^i=koyh ds voyksdu ls ;g Li"V gS fd oknh }kjk okni= ds leFkZu esa 'kiFki= 5&lh nkf[ky fd;k x;k gS rFkk 6&lh 1@1 yxHkx 6&lh&1@14 okni= dh Áfr Hkh nkf[ky dh x;h gS] tks i=koyh ij miyC/k gSA oknh }kjk okni= esa Áfroknh ij fdjk;k cdk;k gksuk o cdk;k fdjk;s ds vk/kkj ij Áfroknh dh fdjk;snkjh lekIr djus ds lEcU/k esa uksfVl fn;s tkus ds mijkUr Hkh Áfroknh }kjk u rks fdjk;s dh /kujkf'k vnk fd;s tkus vkSj u gh Á'uxr nqdku dk dCtk oknh dks fn;s tkus ds vk/kkj ij Áfroknh ds fo:) okn dkj.k mRiUu gksus dk Li"V dFku fd;k x;k gSA Áfroknh }kjk ;g Hkh Li"V ugha fd;k x;k gS fd ÁLrqr okn fof/k ds fdl Áko/kku ls ckf/kr gS] ftlds vk/kkj ij okni= vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 lhŒlhŒihŒ ds vuqlkj ukeUtwj fd;k tkuk pkfg,A vr% Áfroknh }kjk ÁkFkZuk&i= 32 lh&2 iw.kZr;k dkYifud ,oa cukoVh dFkuksa ds vk/kkj ij rFkk ekeys dks vuko';d :i ls foyfEcr djus ds mn~ns'; ls nqHkkZouk ls Ásfjr gksdj is'k fd;k tkuk Árhr gksrk gS] tks U;k;ky; dh jk; esa fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA** 8. The petitioner again moved an application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. being paper No. 37 C that no cause of action has been disclosed for institution of the proceedings. The petitioner again moved an application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. being paper No. 37 C that no cause of action has been disclosed for institution of the proceedings. This Application No. 37 C under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. was rejected by the Civil Judge (S.D.)/Judge Small Cause Court, Kasganj by order dated 22.12.2016 observing as under: ^^i=koyh ds voyksdu ls fofnr gS fd iwoZ esa Hkh Áfroknh }kjk vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 lhŒihŒlhŒ ds vuqlkj okn i= dks ukeUtwj fd;s tkus ds fy;s ÁkFkZuki= 32&lhŒ&2 ÁLrqr fd;k x;k Fkk] ftls U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 05-11-2016 dks mHk;i{k dks lquok;h dk i;kZIr volj nsus ds mijkar xq.k&nks"k ds vk/kkj ij fuLrkfjr dj okn i= dks vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 lhŒihŒlhŒ esa ukeUtwj fd;s tkus ds i;kZIr vk/kkj u ikrs gq, ÁkFkZuki= dks fujLr fd;k x;k gSA Áfroknh }kjk vius Áfroknh i= esa Loa; dks fdjk;snkj gksuk Lohdkj fd;k gS rFkk fookfnr nqdku dk fdjk;k fyf[kr dFku ds iSjk 35 esa 2050@& :i;k Áfrekg gksuk Lohdkj fd;k gSA laifr varj.k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 108 vkbZ esa iV~Vsnkj dks ;g vf/kdkj Ánku fd;k x;k gS fd ;fn iV~Vk iV~Vsnkj dh =qfV ds dkj.k ls fHkUu dkj.k ls lekIr gqvk gS rks iV~Vk/khu Hkwfe ij iV~Vsnkj }kjk mxk;h x;h Qly vkfn dks ysus ds fy, iV~Vsnkj dks vkus tkus dk vf/kdkj ÁkIr gksxkA vr% /kkjk 108 vkbZ laifr varj.k vf/kfu;e ds Áko/kku bl ekeys esa ykxw ugha gksrs gS] D;ksafd bl ekeys esa iV~Vk/khu laifr dks ,d nqdku crk;k x;k gSA Áfroknh dks vkSj ls ,slk dksbZ Hkh iV~Vk vfHkys[k nkf[ky ugha fd;k x;k gS] ftlds vk/kkj ij mlds dFkuksa dks cy fey lds fd iV~Vk ,d o"kZ ls vf/kd vof/k ds fy, Fkk vFkok o"kkZuqo"kZ fdjk;k lajf{kr djus ls lEcfU/kr FkkA /kkjk 107 laifr varj.k vf/kfu;e ds vuqlkj vpy laifr ds ,d o"kZ ls vf/kd vof/k dk iV~Vk dsoy iathd`r iV~Vk foys[k }kjk gh fd;k tk ldrk gSA Áfroknh dh vkSj ls ,slk dksbZ iathd`r foys[k ;k iV~Vkukek vkfn nkf[ky ugha fd;k x;k gS] ftlls Áfroknh ds dFkuksa dks cy fey ldsA Áfroknh vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 lhŒihŒlhŒ ds vuqlkj ckj&ckj ÁkFkZuk i= ÁLrqr dj ftu fcUnqvksa dks mBkuk pkgrk gS] og lHkh mHk;i{k dk lk{; vkus ds mijkar xq.k nks"k ds vk/kkj ij fu.khZr fd;k tkuk laHko gSA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ekeyk vUrxZr vuqPNsn 227 uaŒ 5839@2016 esa ikfjr vkns'k fnuakd 17-08-2016 ds vuqlkj ekeys dk 'kh?kz fuLrkj.k fd;s tkus gsrq funsZf'kr fd;k x;k gS] ijUrq Áfroknh ,d gh vk/kkj ij ckj&ckj ÁkFkZuki= ÁLrqr dj ekeys dks vuko';d :i ls foyfEcr djuk pkgrk gS rFkk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k dks ÁHkkoghu djuk pkgrk gSA vr% ekeys ds rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, ÁkFkZuki= 37 lh nqjk'k; ls Ásfjr gksdj ekeys dks foyfEcr djus ds mn~ns'; ls is'k fd;k tkuk Árhr gksrk gS tks gtkZus lfgr fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA** It appears that against the order dated 5.11.2016, the petitioner-defendant has filed S.C.C. Revision No. 04 of which is pending. It further appears that the petition under Article 227 No. 5839 of 2016 was filed by the respondent-plaintiff which was disposed of by order dated 17.8.2016 directing the concerned court below to decide the S.C.C. case No. 06 of 2015 expeditiously. 9. While rejecting the second application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. being paper No. 37 C, the Court below observed that the application has been filed with ill-motive so as to delay conclusion of the case and consequently the Court dismissed the application with cost of Rs. 2000/- against which the petitioner-defendant had filed SCC Revision No. Nil of 2017 which was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Kasganj by the impugned order dated 27.1.2017 at the admission stage. 10. From the facts as afore-noted and also on perusal of the order dated 5.11.2016, rejecting the application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC being paper No. 32C-2, it appears that first application filed by the plaintiff-defendant on the ground of non disclosure of cause of action was rejected by Civil Judge (S.D.)/Judge Small Causes Court, Kasganj. It was observed that issues have already been framed on 29.9.2016. The court below also observed that the application 32C-2 has been filed on a imaginary ground with ill-motive to delay the conclusion of the case. Thereafter another application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC being paper No. 37C was filed on the ground that notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was wrongly given by the respondent-plaintiff. This application 37 C was rejected by the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.)/Judge Small Causes Court by the impugned order dated 22.12.2016 in which again the court recorded a finding that multiple application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC are being moved by the petitioner-defendant to unduly delay conclusion of the case and to defeat the direction of the High Court dated 17.8.2016 in Matters Under Article 227 No. 5839 of 2016. The application was rejected with cost of Rs. 2000/-. The conduct of the petitioner-defendant is evident on record that despite framing of the issues, multiple application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC are being filed. In the case of Madhusri Konar and ANR. The application was rejected with cost of Rs. 2000/-. The conduct of the petitioner-defendant is evident on record that despite framing of the issues, multiple application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC are being filed. In the case of Madhusri Konar and ANR. v. The New Central Book Agency Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (14) SCC 14 , Hon'ble Supreme Court declined to interfere with the order of the High Court refusing to issue a direction to the Trial Court to dispose of an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC on the ground that all the objections raised by the appellant in the application filed under Order 7, Rule 11 are covered by the issues already framed. 11. In the present set of facts, it is undisputed that the issues have already been framed after exchange of pleadings and by order dated 17.8.2016 this Court has directed for expeditious disposal of the case. 12. Under the circumstances, the findings of the court below in the order dated 5.11.2016 and 22.12.2016 regarding the conduct of the petitioner defendant as afore-noted, has substance. This Court can not act in the aid of the petitioner-defendant/tenant who is filing successive applications under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC with intent to delay the conclusion of the case on merit. Consequently, I do not find any good reason to interfere with the impugned orders. 13. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is dismissed.