Anjani Kumar, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
2. The petitioner-tenant, who was defendant in a suit, which is pending before the Judge, Small Cause Court filed by the respondent-landlord for the relief of recovery of arrears of rent, damages and ejectment, filed an application during the pendency of the suit before the trial court that since the respondent-landlord has withdrawn the facility of providing water to the petitioner-tenant, therefore the landlord may be directed to provide the same and further restrained him not to disconnect the same in future. This application of the petitioner-tenant has been rejected by the trial court on the ground that this application is not maintainable in the suit for ejectment, as the cause of action in the suit is a different cause of action and no issue to this effect has been framed and since the Court of Small Causes are not required to frame issue while deciding the suit, no preliminary issue can be framed. Aggrieved by the order passed by the trial court, the petitioner-tenant preferred revision before the revisional court. The revisional court maintained the order passed by the trial Court and dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner-tenant.
3. Before this Court, learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant relying upon the decision of this Court in Mohammad Tahir v. Prescribed Authority, Etawah and Anr. 1995 (1) ARC 270, wherein during the pendency of an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (In short 'the Act'), an application purporting to be an application under Section 27 of 'the Act' was filed by the tenant for enforcement of the application during the pendency of the matter before the trial court, which has been held to be maintainable by this Court. The facts of the case relied upon by learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant, referred to above, are different than the facts of the present case, therefore, in my opinion the law laid by this Court in the case of Mohammad Tahir do not apply in the present case. No other arguments have been advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant. I have gone through the orders impugned in the present writ petition and I do not find any ground for interference with the orders impugned by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.