WPMS No. 838 of 2010 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Shri Neeraj Garg, the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant and Shri Karan Anand, the learned counsel for the opposite parties. A suit for eviction and arrears of rent was filed under the Small Cause Courts Act. The trial court framed certain issues by an order dated 20th February, 2010. Issue no. 2 reads something like this:- “Whether the tenancy of the defendant has been terminated or not ?” Subsequently, the petitioner-tenant moved an application for framing an additional issue in the light of paragraph 25 of the written statement. Paragraph 25 of the written statement reads that the relationship of landlord-tenant had come to an end w.e.f. 30th September, 2004. This application was rejected by the court below by an order dated 10th May, 2010, against which, the petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order, the Court is of the opinion that the order dated 10th May, 2010 requires no interference, being an interlocutory order. This Court, is further of the opinion that against the interim order, writ petition is not maintainable. Further the Court does not find any palpable error in the impugned order which requires interference. The writ petition is dismissed. However, it is observed that the issue which the petitioner is trying to frame in relation to paragraph 25 of his written statement, is squarely covered by issue No.2 which has already been framed by the court below by its order dated 20th February, 2010. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 07.07.2010 Shiv