IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 210 (MS) OF 2004 Ram Kumar ………..Petitioner. Versus Smt. Khushrabi Begum and Others. …..Respondents. Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard Sri Sudhir Kumar, counsel for the petitioner. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 22.12.2002 passed by the Judge Small Causes Court/Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pauri and 03.11.2003 passed by District Judge, Pauri. Briefly stated, a suit was filed by the respondent for ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of default in payment of rent and material alteration being S.C.C. Suit No. 2 of 1998; Smt. Khushrabi Begum and another Vs. Ram Kumar. Another suit was filed against Sri Ram Kishan elder brother of the petitioner for his ejectment from adjoining shop on the same ground of default in payment of rent and material alteration in the tenanted premises. During the pendency of the case, an application has been filed by the petitioners under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure as well as framing the preliminary issue. The Court below has rejected the application of the petitioners on 22.11.2002. A revision was preferred by the petitioner under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act before the District Judge, Pauri Garhwal against the order dated 22.1.2002 passed by the learned trial Court, which was dismissed on 03.11.2003. The revisional court has recorded a finding that the suit is not barred by Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Admittedly, the petitioner, Ram Kumar is a tenant of one shop and the other shop is under the tenancy of his brother, Ram Kishan. Two suits were filed by the plaintiff separately. In paragraph 26 (v) of the written statement, the petitioner himself has alleged that two tenancies have been challenged by filing two suits. The averments are quoted below:- “26-v- ;g fd izfroknh dh fdjk;snkjh okyh nqdku ds if’pe esa izfr’kr ds HkkbZ jkefd’ku dh fdjk;snkjh okyh nqdku gS ftlds Hkou Lokeh oknhx.k gSaA oknhx.k }kjk izLrqr okn esa izfroknh ds fo:/n yxk;s x;s vkjksiksa ds vk/kkj ij gh izfroknh ds HkkbZ jkefd’ku ds fo:/n fnukad 23-12-1997 dks ekuuh; flfoy tt tw0fM0 dksV}kj x<+oky ds U;k;ky; esa fdjk;k ,oa csn[kyh gsrq ,d [kQhQk okn la0 1 lu 1998 [kq’kjoh csxe rFkk vU; cuke jke fd’ku izLrqr fd;k x;k gS tks lquok;h gsrq fopkjk/khu gSA izfroknh }kjk mijksDr [kQhQk okn la0 1 lu 1998esa yxk;s x;s vk{ksiksa ds vk/kkj ij gh izLrqr oknh izfroknh ds fo:/n izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA bl izdkj oknhx.k ds fy;s izLrqr okn o mijksDr [kQhQk okn la[;k 1 lu 1998 dk okn dk dkj.k ,d gh gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa izfroknh }kjk vkns’k&2 fu;e 2 nh0v0la0 ds vuqlkj nksuks izfroknhx.k ds fo:/n ,d lkFk ,d gh oknh izLrqr djuk pkfg;s FkkA ,slh fLFkfr esa izLrqr oknh nh0iz0la0 ds vkns’k&2] fue; 2 ls caf/kr gSaA” Admittedly, there are two tenants, one Ram Kumar and second Ram Kishan and as such, the two suits have been filed. Neither there is any similarity in the array of the parties, nor there is any similarity of cause of action. Eviction has been sought against both the tenants separately. Merely, because there are two adjoining shops, it will not attract the applicability of Order II Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure. Judge Small Cause Court is directed to dispose of the suit itself within a period of four months form the filing of the certified copy of the order. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of. (RAJESH TANDON, J.) 04.11.2004 P.S.R.