JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard Shri S.K. Jain, counsel for the revisionists and Shri Arvind Vasistha and Shri Jitendra Kumar, counsel for the respondents. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE AS WELL AS PLAINT AVERMENTS 2. The present civil revision was filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, whereby the revisionists have prayed for setting aside the judgment and order dated 24.4.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge/5th Fast Track Court, Dehradun. 3. Briefly stated, a suit being no. SCC suit no. 27 of 2003 was filed by the plaintiff stating therein that the plaintiff is the landlord of property no. 3, Adarsh Nagar, Hira Lal Marg, Rishikesh, District Dehradun of which the defendant no. 1 was month to month tenant of the plaintiff in repsect of the property consisting of three rooms, kitchen, latrine, bathroom and verandah situate in first floor and two rooms, kitchen, latrine, bathroom and verandah besides one room set in the second floor on a monthly rent of Rs. 3500/- alongwith taxes. In addition to rent, the defendant no. 1 was also liable to pay water taxes @ 12.5%. It has been stated that the provisions of U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972 are not applicable to the building in dispute as the monthly rent was more than Rs. 2000/- and the premises are newly constructed. The defendant no. 1 unauthorizedly sublet the second floor to the defendant no. 2. The defendant no. 1 had not paid the rent and taxes since 1st July, 2003 and, as such, uptill 31.8.2003, a sum of Rs. 7000/- has become due to the plaintiff from the defendant no. 1 on account of arrears of rent. The water tax for the period from 1.7.2003 to 31.8.2003 to the extent of Rs. 875/- has also become due to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has sent a notice for demand of rent and taxes on 1.9.2003 to the defendant no. 1. The tenancy of the defendant no. 1 was also terminated by the said notice, which was served upon the defendant no. 1 on 9.9.2003. A copy of the aforesaid notice was also sent to the defendant no. 2, but inspite of the service of the notice, the defendant no. 1 has neither paid the arrears of rent and taxes nor has vacated the property in dispute, hence the suit. 4. 1 on 9.9.2003. A copy of the aforesaid notice was also sent to the defendant no. 2, but inspite of the service of the notice, the defendant no. 1 has neither paid the arrears of rent and taxes nor has vacated the property in dispute, hence the suit. 4. It has also been stated that the defendant no. 3 was impleded in the suit in compliance of the order dated 15.3.2005 of the Hon’ble High Court, Uttarakhand and order dated 23.5.2005 passed by the trial court. It has been stated that the defendant no. 1 had taken first floor accommodation on rent @ Rs. 1100/- per month from the plaintiff. In the year 1991, the defendant no. 1 had taken one room set on the second floor for which the additional rent of Rs. 500/- per month was fixed and thus became the tenant of one room set on the second floor alongwith first floor accommodation on a sum of Rs. 1600/- per month. It has been stated that the defendant no. 1 had obtained one receipt from the plaintiff for first floor in his own name @ Rs. 1100/- per month and for the one room set on the second floor on a sum of Rs. 500/- per month in the name of his wife. It has also been statd that the defendant no. 1 on 2.10.1991 obtained the rent receipt in respect of said one room set on the second floor for the months of August and September, 1991 in the joint names of himself and his wife. It has also been stated that the rent was also paid by the defendant no. 1. In paragraph 13 E of the plaint, it has been stated as under : “13E. That in January 1992, on the request of defendant no. 1 and 3, the aforesaid mode of obtaining rent receipts in joint names of defendant no. 1 and 3, was abandoned. The defendant no. 3, surrendered her alleged tenancy rights in repsect of the said one room set on the second floor and the alleged tenancies of the said first floor accommodation and the said one room set on the second floor were amalgamated as one tenancy of defendant no. 1 alone at Rs. 1600/- P.M. w.e.f. January 1992 and on 16.4.1992, defendant no. 1 paid six months rent w.e.f. January 1992, amounting to Rs. 1 alone at Rs. 1600/- P.M. w.e.f. January 1992 and on 16.4.1992, defendant no. 1 paid six months rent w.e.f. January 1992, amounting to Rs. 9,600/- by cheque and obtained rent receipt in his name as sole tenant and also signed the counterfoil of the same under his signature.” 5. It has been stated that with effect from January, 1992 the defendant no. 1 became the sole tenant @ Rs. 1600/- per month. The rent was enhanced with effect from January, 1997 from Rs. 1600/- to Rs. 2000/- besides the taxes. Later on, the plaintiff and the defeandant no. 1 had agreed to fix the rent of Rs. 2100/- per month besides the said taxes and with effect from 1998, the defendant no. 1 became month to month tenant of the said accommodation under the tenancy of the plaintiff on a monthly rent of Rs. 2100 per month besides the taxes. It has been stated that after terminating the tenancy on 1.10.1999, the plaintiff had filed SCC suit no. 23 of 1999 Hari Chand Gupta v. Kamal Kumar Jain in the court of District Judge, Dehradun for rent, ejectment and mesne profit etc. in respect of the property in dispute. It has been stated that the defendant no. 1 and 3, namely, Kamal Kumar Jain and Smt. Chandra Kanta Jain pressurrized the plaintiff to withdraw the aforesaid SCC suit no. 23 of 1999. On 17.10.2002, the plaintiff and the defendant nos. 1 and 3 entered into a compromise on the following terms :- (i) The said two rooms set on the second floor along with the aforesaid first floor accommodation and the said one room set on the second floor, all as one unit accommodation which is described in the schedule of the plaint, was let out by the plaintiff to defendant no. 1 on a monthly rent of Rs. 3500/- besides the taxes. (ii) The plaintiff agreed to get this said S.C.C. suit no. 23 of 1999 dismissed. (iii) The defendant no. 3 abandoned and gave up her said claim of being tenant of the said one room set on the second floor and agreed to withdraw her said suit no. 835 of 2001.} 6. In paragraph 13 M, it has been stated as under :- That the said settlement was acted upon as under :- (i) The defendant no. 3 abandoned and gave up her said claim of being tenant of the said one room set on the second floor and agreed to withdraw her said suit no. 835 of 2001.} 6. In paragraph 13 M, it has been stated as under :- That the said settlement was acted upon as under :- (i) The defendant no. 3 on the same date i.e. 17.10.2002 made an applciation in suit no. 835 of 2001 to the effect that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties and that she did not want to continue suit no. 835 of 2001 and that her suit be dismissed. She enclosed a copy of the rent agreement executed between the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 with her said application for withdrawal of suit no. 835 of 2001. (ii) The plaintiff got his said S.C.C. suit no. 23 of 1999, dismissed in default on the date fixed in the case. (iii) The defendant no. 1 started paying rent for the said entire one unit accommodation, described in the schedule of the plaint to the plaintiff at Rs. 3500/- P.M. besides the taxes.” 7. It has been stated that the defendant nos. 1 and 3 are husband and wife. The defendant no. 3 had never paid any rent to the plaintiff in respect of any portion of the property in dispute and the rent has only been paid by the defendant no. 1. The defendant no. 3 has no independent tenancy rights in any portion of the accommodation. The plaintiff has prayed following reliefs :- a. A decree for realization of a sum of Rs. 11,629/- on account of arrears of rent from 1.7.2003 till date of termination of the tenancy i.e. 9.10.2003 and for a sum of Rs. 1439.50 on account of arrears of taxes for the period between 1.7.2003 to 9.10.2003 be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no. 1. b. A decree for realization of a sum of Rs. 1100 on account of legal notice be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no. 1. c. A decree for ejectment of the defendants from the property in suit which is morefully described in the schedule of the plaint may very kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. d. A decree for realization of mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 1. c. A decree for ejectment of the defendants from the property in suit which is morefully described in the schedule of the plaint may very kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. d. A decree for realization of mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 7000/- per month from the date of termination of the tenancy of the defendants till the date physical vacant possession of the property in suit is delivered to the plaintiff may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. e. Full cost of the suit be awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. f. Any other relief to which the plaintiff is found entitled under the facts and circumstances of the case may also very kindly be awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.” WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT NO. 2, THE PREDECESSOR OF DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS NO. 3 TO 7 8. The defendant no. 2 Raghunath (the deceased) has filed the written statement stating therein that a portion of the property in dispute was given to him by Kamal Kumar Jain (the defendant no. 1) on a month to month basis and he is paying the rent to the defendant no. 1. It has been submitted that at the time of subletting the property, he was not aware that the plaintiff Hari Chand Gupta is the owner of the property in dispute and he is paying the rent to the defendant no. 1 and in future he will be paying the rent as per the direction of the court. Paragraph nos. 19 and 20 of the written statement to that effect are quoted below :- ß19- ;g fd mÙkjnkrk dks izfroknh lañ1 Jh dey dqekj tSu] }kjk lEifÙk fdjk;s ij nh xbZ Fkh] rc mÙkjnkrk dks ;g tkudkjh ugha Fkh fd oknh Jh gfjpUn xqIrk iz”uxr lEifÙk lañ 03 vkn”kZ uxj ghjkyky ekxZ] _f’kds”k ftyk nsgjknwu ds iw.kZ :i ls Lokeh gSa] bl rF; dk Kku mls ckn esa gqvk] tc mls oknh dk uksfVl feykA 20- ;g fd mÙkjnkrk orZeku esa izfroknh la[;k 01 Jh dey dqekj tSu dks fdjk;k vnk dj jgk gS] Hkfo’; esa tSlk ek- U;k;ky; dk vkns”k gksxk] mÙkjnkrk rnuq:i vknsf”kr i{k dks fdjk;k vnk djrk jgsxk vFkok ekuuh; U;k;ky; tSlk vkns”k iz”uxr lEifÙk ds ckcr djssaxs] mldk ikyu djsxkAÞ 9. As will appear from the aforesaid statement that the defendant-respondents 3 to 7 have no independent tenancy rights as their predecessor i.e. the defendant no. 2 late Shri Raghunath was paying the rent to the chief tenant. WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF REVISIONIST NO. 1 10. The defendant no. 1 has filed the written statement alongwith counter claim and has submitted that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable on the said property. It has been denied that the monthly rent of the disputed property was more than Rs. 2000/- per month and the building in dispute is newly constructed. 11. It has been submitted by the defendant no. 1 that he is the tenant of property shown in the schedule ‘ka’ on a monthly rent of Rs. 1600/- per month. Earlier the rent was Rs. 1100/- which was increased to Rs. 1500 and thereafter increased to the extent of Rs. 1600/- per month. Smt. Chandra Kanta Jain is the tenant of the property shown in schedule ‘kha’ @ Rs. 500/- per month from the year 1992. Apart from the aforesaid, the defendant no. 1 has also alleged about the agreement for sale in paragraph 21. Paragraph 21 of the written statement. 1500 and thereafter increased to the extent of Rs. 1600/- per month. Smt. Chandra Kanta Jain is the tenant of the property shown in schedule ‘kha’ @ Rs. 500/- per month from the year 1992. Apart from the aforesaid, the defendant no. 1 has also alleged about the agreement for sale in paragraph 21. Paragraph 21 of the written statement. Paragraph 21 reads as under :- ß21- ;g fd oknh us Jherh pUædkUrk tSu ds i{k esa ,d foØ;&vuqca/k fnukad 4-7-1995 vafdr o fu’ikfnr dj j[kk gSA Jherh pUædkUrk tSu vkSj oknh esa ,d fyf[kr lafonk fnukad 4-7-1995 vafdr o fu’ikfnr gks j[kk gSA mijksDr foØ;&vuqca/k dh “krs± fuEukuqlkj iznf”kZr dh tk jgh gSaA bu “krks± esa tgka ^izFke i{k* vk;k gS] mlls mldk lacaèk ^oknh* ls gS rFkk tgka ^f}rh; i{k* vk;k gS] mlls mldk laca/k ^Jherh pUædkark tSu* ls gS fd tks ewyokn la[;k 835 o’kZ 2001 dh okfnuh gSA mDr “kjk;rsa fuEukuqlkj gSa %& ¼d½ ;g fd mijksDr izFke i{k ds LokfeRo o dCts esa ,d lEifÙk edku uxjikfydk lEifÙk la[;k 03 vkn”kZ uxj] _f’kds”k] ftldk tehu dk jdck 333 oxZxt gS vkSj bl ij edku fufeZr gSA mDr lEifÙk dh lhek bl izdkj gS %& iwoZ dh vksj & ghjkyky ekxZ] if”pe dh vksj lEifÙk lwjt izdk”k xqykVh] mÙkj dh vksj & lEifÙk Jh iou dqekj xqIrk o nf{k.k dh vksj jks”k yky MaxA mijksDr lEifÙk gj izdkj ds Hkkj&cU/ku ls eqDr gS] dksbZ vU; lk>hnkj ;k Hkkxhnkj ugha gSA mijksDr lEifÙk dk foØ; vuqca/k nksuksa i{kksa ds e/; fuEu “krks± ij fd;k x;k %& ¼[k½ ;g fd mDr lEifÙk dh dqy dher nksuksa i{kksa ds e/; 8]25]000@& #i;s ¼vkB yk[k iPphl gtkj #i;s½ pSd ua- 796728 eq- 10]000@& #i;s fnukad 12-6-1995] eq- 15]000 @& #i;s ua- 796730 fnukad 20-6-95] eq- 75]000@& #i;s ua- 7967431 fnukad 5-7-95 dqy 1]00]000@& #i;s izkIr dj fy;s gSaA “ks’k dher dh vnk;xh Øsrk }kjk bl izdkj dh tkosxhA eq- 3]00]000@& #i;s ¼rhu yk[k #i;s½ 25 fnlEcj 1995 dks rFkk 4]25]000@& #i;s ¼pkj yk[k iPphl gtkj #i;s½ 25 ekpZ 1996 dks Øsrk vnk djsaxs vkSj foØsrk mlh fnu mDr lEifÙk dk foØ; i= Øsrk ds gd esa lc&jftLVªkj] nsgjknwu ds dk;kZy; ls iathÑr djk nsaxs vkSj lEifÙk ij dCtk mijksDr Øsrk dks ns nsaxs rFkk Øsrk ds [kpsZ ij foØsrk mDr tehu dh jftLVªh Øsrk ds gd esa djk nsaxsA ¼x½ ;g fd bl le; mDr edku ij vk;dj dk;kZy; rFkk Øsrk fdjk;s ij gS rFkk edku dh rhljh eafty ij jktsUæ eexkbZ fdjk;snkj gSA vk;dj dk;kZy; o Øsrk dh fdjk;snkjh fQygky jgsxh] fdUrq jktsUæ eexkbZ ds ikl tks dejs fdjk;s ij gSa] mUgs [kkyh djkus dk mÙkjnkf;Ro foØsrk izFke i{k dk gS vkSj foØ; i= fu’iknu ls iwoZ eexkbZ okyk fdjk;snkjh foØsrk [kkyh djk nsxkA ¼?k½ ;g fd nksuksa i{k bl vuqcU/k ij ikcUn jgsaxsA ;fn mijksDr Øsrk “ks’k dher mijksDr fu/kkZfjr le; esa vnk ugha djrk gS rks fn;k x;k c;kuk tCr le>k tkosxk vkSj ;fn mijksDr foØsrk djus ls bUdkj dj foØsrk esa lEifÙk gd&gdwd esa deh ikbZ tk;s foØsrk lEifÙk ls mijksDr fy[ks x;s fdjk;snkj dks [kkyh u djk ik;s ;k foØsrk dks dksbZ mÙkjkfèkdkjh bl foØ; i= esa fookn djs rks foØsrk dh yh x;h vfxze /kujkf”k ds nqxqus mDr [kjhnkj dks vnk djus ds mÙkjnk;h gksaxsA ¼³½ ;g fd mDr lEifÙk ij tks dj] Hkou dj] ikuh dsfcy fo|qr vU; dksbZ dj cdk;k gksxk mls vnk djus dk mÙkjnkf;Ro mijksDr foØsrk izFke i{k dk gksxk o ijfe”ku dk nkf;Ro Hkh [kjhnkj dk gksxkA lkslk;Vh dk [kpkZ Hkh f}rh; i{k ogu djsxkAÞ 12. It has been submitted by the defendant no. 1 in his written statement that Smt. Chandrakanta Jain had instituted a suit being no. 835 of 2001 in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), F.T.C. 1, Dehradun against the plaintiff and the defendant no. 1 which is pending decision. It has been submitted that compromise was taken place with the plaintiff and the suit no. 27 of 2003 was withdrawn. In paragraph 26 of the written statement, it has been submitted as under :- ß26- ;g fd lfU/k gksdj oknh rFkk izfroknh la[;k 1 esa ;g fu/kkZfjr gqvk fd izfroknh la[;k 1 oknh dk izfrfuf/k cudj] izfrokn i= dh lwph ^d* esa of.kZr lEifÙk dk fdjk;k vadu 1600@& #i;s] izfroknh i= dh lwph ^[k* esa of.kZr lEifÙk fd tks Jherh pUædkUrk tSu dh fdjk;snkjh esa gS] dk fdjk;k 500@& #i;s izfrekg rFkk izfroknh la[;k 2 dh fdjk;snkjh okyh lEifÙk fd ftldk fooj.k izfrokn i= dh lwph ^x* esa fn;k x;k gS] dk fdjk;k 1400 #i;s izfrekg ,d= djds oknh dks nsrk jgsxkA izfroknh la[;k 1 pw+¡fd oknksa ls cgqr Mjrk gS] vr% og oknh ls lfU/k djus ds fy, mrk# gks x;kAÞ VERSION OF DEFENDANT NO. 1 IN SHAPE OF COUNTER CLAIM 13. The defendant no. 1 has submitted that the submission of the defendant no. 2 Raghunath that he is the tenant of defendant no. 1 has been made in collusion of the plaintiff. It has been prayed that the declaration be made that the defendant no. 1 is the tenant of the property shown in the schedule ‘ka’ of the written statement @ Rs. 1600/- per month, the defendant no. 3 is the tenant of the property shown in schedule ‘kha’ on a sum of Rs. 500/- and the defendant no. 2 is the tenant of the property shown in schedule ‘ga’ on a sum of Rs. 1400/- per month. 1600/- per month, the defendant no. 3 is the tenant of the property shown in schedule ‘kha’ on a sum of Rs. 500/- and the defendant no. 2 is the tenant of the property shown in schedule ‘ga’ on a sum of Rs. 1400/- per month. The counter claim has been made to the following effect : ßvr% ekuuh; egksn; ls uez izkFkZuk gS fd izfroknh la[;k 1 ds i{k esa rFkk oknh ds fo#) fuEu izfrdkjksa dh vkKfIr ikfjr dh tkos %& ¼d½ ;g fd ;g ?kks’k.kk dh tkos fd izfroknh la[;k 1 izfrokn i= dh lwph i= ^d* esa of.kZr lEifÙk esa oknh dh vksj ls 1]600 #i;s izfrekg dh nj ls ekg&nj&ekg dk fdjk;snkj gS rFkk izfrokn i= dh lwph ^[k* esa of.kZr lEifÙk esa Jherh pUædkUrk tSu 500@& #i;s izfrekg dh nj ls ekg&nj&ekg dh fdjk;snkj vkckn gS rFkk izfroknh la[;k 2 oknh dh vksj ls izfroknh i= dh lwph ^x* esa of.kZr lEifÙk ij 1400@& #i;s izfrekg dh nj ls ekg&nj&ekg dk fdjk;snkj vkckn gSA ¼[k½ ;g fd mijksDr izfrdkjksa ds lkFk ;k vyx ls vU; dksbZ izfrdkj fd tks izfroknh la[;k 1 ds i{k esa vkSj izfroknh la[;k 1 dks feyuk laHko gks] Hkh iznku fd;k tkosA ¼x½ ;g fd izfroknh la[;k 1 dks leLr okn O;; oknh ls fnyok;k tkosAÞ WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF REVISIONIST NO. 2 (DEFENDANT NO. 3 IN THE SUIT) 14. A written statement was filed by the defendant no. 3 stating therein that she is a tenant of the plaintiff in second floor of property no.3, Adarsh Nagar, Rishikesh, Dehradun comprising of one room, kitchen, verandah in the second floor and latrine, bathroom in the first floor under the staircase on a monthly rent of Rs. 500/-. Provisions of U.P. Act no. 13 are applicable to the portion in her tenancy. The defendant no. 1 has nothing to do with the tenancy of defendant nos. 2 and 3 and all the tenancies are different and separate under the plaintiff and each of them has nothing to do with the tenancies of each others. She is continuing as a tenant and the plaintiff is not entitled to disposes her from the property in her tenancy. The plaintiff has never given any notice to her. It has been admitted that the defendant no. 1 is her husband. She is continuing as a tenant and the plaintiff is not entitled to disposes her from the property in her tenancy. The plaintiff has never given any notice to her. It has been admitted that the defendant no. 1 is her husband. The plaintiff has entrusted upon her husband to collect rent of all the tenants and pay collectively to the plaintiff under receipt of each of them. It has been denied that the defendant no. 1 obtained any receipt as alleged in her name. The said portion was let out to the defendant no. 3 and thus, the plaintiff has issued the receipts in her name. It has been denied that the tenancy of the defendant no. 1 and the defendant no.l 3 has ever become one tenancy. It has also been denied that the defendant no. 1 got any suit filed in the name of the defendant no. 3. The defendant no. 1 himself was a defendant in suit no. 835 of 2001 and the said suit is pending decision. It has been submitted that the suit no. 23 of 1999 was not withdrawn rather it was dismissed in default. It has been denied that the defendant no. 1 has ever paid the rent of Rs. 3500/- per month as alleged. The said amount included Rs. 1600/- as rent of the accommodation under the tenancy of the defendant no. 1, Rs. 500/- as rent of the accommodation under the tenancy of the defendant no. 3 and Rs. 1400/- as rent of the accommodation under the tenancy of the defendant no. 2. All the three defendants are separate tenants of the plaintiff. The suit is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure. In paragraph 36 of the written statement, it has been submitted as under :- “36. That the plaintiff had earlier entered into an agreement of sale of the property in suit with the answering defendant and have even received a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh) out of a total sale consideration of Rs. 8,25,000/- but with ill intention backed out in executing and completing the sale deed in favour of the answering defendant.” DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF 15. Plaintiff has filed copy of the notice dated 1.9.2003 paper no. 8 ga, Receipt paper no. 9 ga, registered envelope paper no. One Lakh) out of a total sale consideration of Rs. 8,25,000/- but with ill intention backed out in executing and completing the sale deed in favour of the answering defendant.” DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF 15. Plaintiff has filed copy of the notice dated 1.9.2003 paper no. 8 ga, Receipt paper no. 9 ga, registered envelope paper no. 10 ga, reply of notice dated 7.9.2003 paper no. 23 ga, one document from list 26 ga, 4 documents from list 60 ga, copy of withdrawal application with respect to original suit no. 835 of 2001 i.e. paper no. 61 ga, copy of application dated 1.1.2002 in suit no. 3 of 2001 i.e. paper no. 62 ga, copy of the order passed in suit no. 3/01 dated 1.1.2002 i.e. paper no. 63 ga, certificate dated 4.10.2004 issued by the Manager, Punjab and Sindh Bank, Rishikesh i.e. paper no. 64 a, acknowledge paper no. 67 ga, copy of application dated 10.1.2002 i.e. paper no. 68 ga, copy of order dated 10.1.2003 i.e. paper no. 69 ga, certificate issued by Oriental Bank of Commerce i.e. paper no. 70 ga, copy of notice dated 1.10.1999 i.e. paper no. 71 ga, copy of reply of notice dated 19.10.1999 i.e. paper no. 72 ga, copy of reply of notice dated 3.10.2003 i.e. paper no. 73 ga, postal receipt i.e. paper no. 74a, copy of cheque dated 22.4.2003 of Union Bank of India i.e. paper no. 80 ga, copy of cheque dated 20.6.2003 of Union Bank of India i.e. paper no. 81 ga, copy of cheque dated 20.1.2003 of Union Bank of India i.e. paper no. 82 ga, Receipt books i.e. paper no. 83 ga and 84 ga, paper no. 113 ga from list no. 112 ga and paper no. 116 ga from list 115 ga. DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE REVISIONISTS 16. The defendant has filed copy of order passed in suit no. 23 of 1999 dated 19.03.2001 i.e. paper no. 28 ga, copy of original agreement for sale i.e. paper no. 35 ga, notices dated 21.10.1992, 10.2.1993, 1.8.1995 and 15.12.1995 i.e. paper nos. 36 ga, 37 ga, 38 ga and 39 ga respectively, agreement for sale dated 4.7.1995 i.e. paper no. 40 ga, inland letter card dated 7.7.1995 i.e. paper no. 41 ga, copy of order of suit no. 23 of 1999 i.e. paper no. 50 ga, copy of plaint in suit no. 36 ga, 37 ga, 38 ga and 39 ga respectively, agreement for sale dated 4.7.1995 i.e. paper no. 40 ga, inland letter card dated 7.7.1995 i.e. paper no. 41 ga, copy of order of suit no. 23 of 1999 i.e. paper no. 50 ga, copy of plaint in suit no. 23 of 1999 i.e. paper no. 51 ga, copy of written sttement i.e. paper no. 52 ga, copy of plaint filed in original suit no. 835 of 2001 i.e. paper no. 53 ga, copy of order in original suit no.835 of 2001 i.e. paper no. 54 ga, copy of written statement of suit no. 835 of 2001 i.e. paper no. 55 ga and one document from list 78 ga. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION FRAMED BY THE JUDGE, SMALL CAUSE COURT 17. In the S.C.C. suit no. 27/2003 following points have been framed by the trial court for determination :- ß1- D;k izfroknh lañ 1 okni= dh lwph esa nf”kZr lEifÙk dk 3500 #i;s ekfld fdjk;snkj Fkk\ 2- D;k izfroknh la- 1 us ifjlj dks izfroknh la- 2 dks fdjk;s ij ns fn;k gS\ 3- D;k fookfnr lEifÙk ij m-iz- vf/kfu;e 13 lu~ 1972 ds izkfo/kku ykxw gksrs gSa\ 4- D;k izfroknh la- 1 dsoy izfrokni= dh lwph ^d* esa nf”kZr lEifÙk dk 1600 #i;s ekfld dk fdjk;snkj gS\ 5- D;k izfroknh dk dkmaVj Dyse fof/kd :i ls iks’k.kh; ugha gS\ 6- D;k izfrokni= dh lwph ^[k* dh lEifÙk esa Jherh pUædkUrk tSu 500@& #i;s ekfld dh fdjk;snkj gS\ 7- oknh fdl vuqrks’k dks ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 8- izfroknh la- 1 fdl vuqrks’k dks ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 9- D;k bl U;k;ky; dks izLrqr ekeys dh lquokbZ dk {ks=kf/kdkj ugha gS\ tSlk fd izfroknh la- 1 ds izfrokn i= 110 d ds izLrj 2 esa fy[kk x;k gS ;fn gk¡ rks bldk izHkko\Þ FINDINGS OF THE JUDGE, SMALL CAUSE COURT ON POINT NOS. 1 & 2 18. While deciding the point no. 1 as to whether the defendant no. 1 was the tenant of the disputed property @ Rs. 3500/- per month and point no. 2 as to whether the defendant no. 1 has sublet the a portion of the disputed property to the defendant no. 1, the trial court has recorded the finding that Kamal Kumar Jain i.e. the defendant no. 1 is the tenant of the property in dispute @ Rs. 3500/- per month and point no. 2 as to whether the defendant no. 1 has sublet the a portion of the disputed property to the defendant no. 1, the trial court has recorded the finding that Kamal Kumar Jain i.e. the defendant no. 1 is the tenant of the property in dispute @ Rs. 3500/- per month and he has sublet a portion of the disputed property to Raghu Nath, the predecessor of the defendant-respondent nos. 3 to 7. 1, the trial court has recorded the finding that Kamal Kumar Jain i.e. the defendant no. 1 is the tenant of the property in dispute @ Rs. 3500/- per month and he has sublet a portion of the disputed property to Raghu Nath, the predecessor of the defendant-respondent nos. 3 to 7. The findings recorded by the trial court are quoted below :- ßbl fLFkfr ij ;g foosfpr gksrk gS fd D;k izfroknh dey dqekj tSu }kjk 3500@& #i;s ekgokj fd”r fdjk;s ds :i esa mDr laiw.kZ lEifÙk dh oknh dks vnk dh xbZ tks mlus Lo;a izfrokn i= dh lwph ^d*] ^[k* o ^x* esa nf”kZr dh gSA izfroknh dey dqekj tSu us viuh izfrijh{kk esa fdjk;sukes ds fu’iknu dks Lohdkj fd;k gSA ewy oknh dh i=koyh ij izk- i= 16 d Jherh pUædkUrk }kjk Hkh izLrqr gS ftlds lkFk mDr vuqca/k i= dh QksVks izfr izi= 16d@2 Hkh layXu dh xbZ gSA bl ij izfroknh dey dqekj tSu }kjk gjh pan xqIrk dks fn- 10-11-02 ;kfu ewy vuqca/k ds i”pkr~ fn;k tkuk fofnr gS] nkf[ky fd;k gSA bl laca/k esa izfroknh dey dqekj tSu us viuh izfrijh{kk esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k fd mlus ;g izi= blh vuqca/k izi= la- 113 d ds Øe esa gh fy[kk Fkk vkSj blh Øe esa izfroknh dey dqekj tSu us oknxzLr laifÙk dk 3500 #i;s ekfld dh nj ls fdjk;s dh jkf”k vnk djus ds fy, oknh gjh pan xqIrk dks fn;kA y?kqokn dh i=koyh ij bl laca/k esa izi= la- 64 x iatkc ,aM fla/k cSad }kjk tkjh ,d izi=] oknh gjh pan us nkf[ky fd;k gS vksj lk{; ds tfj;s Li’V fd;k gS fd nks pSd Øe”k% ua- 70429 fn- 20-12-02 vkSj 22-3-03 iSarhl lkS & iSarhl lkS #i;s ds gSa ftldh /kujkf”k oknh gjh pan dks fn- 24-12-02 o 24-02-03 dks izkIr gks pqdh gSA bl izdkj ;g fookfnr ugha gS fd ewy vuqca/k ds vuqØe o vuqikyu esa izfroknh dey dqekj tSu }kjk 3500 Ei;s izfrekg leLr fdjk;snkjh dh lEifÙk dk izfrekg fdjk;k vnk fd;k x;kA pw¡fd pUædkUrk tSu vius vfrfjDr “kiFk i= ds tfj;s Hkh ;gh “kiFkiwoZd c;ku djds vk;h gS fd izfroknh dey dqekj tSu }kjk 3500 #i;s ,d eq”r izfrekg dk fdjk;k gjh pan xqIrk dks vnk fd;k x;k Fkk blfy, vc ;g lkfcr djus dk Hkkj izfroknh ij vk tkrk gS fd mlus 3500 #i;s dh ;g jkf”k f”kdeh fdjk;snkj ¼mifdjk;snkj½ ls olwy djds nh vFkok og Lo;a 3500 #i;s izfrekg dk fdjk;snkj jgk gSAÞ ßoknh gjh pan xqIrk us izfroknh la- 2 j?kqukFk dks izfroknh la- 1 dey dqekj tSu dk f”kdeh fdjk;snkj ¼mi fdjk;snkj½ gksuk dgk gSA izfroknh la- 2 j?kqukFk us vius izfrokn i= esa blh izdkj Lohdkj Hkh fd;k gS fd okLro esa csn[kyh ds uksfVl izkfIr ds iwoZ ;g ugha tkurk Fkk fd fookfnr laifÙk dk Hkou Lokeh oknh gjh pan xqIrk gS D;ksafd izfroknh dey dqekj tSu us gh mlls fdjk;k olwy fd;k Fkk vkSj mlh us fdjk;snkj j[kkA ;|fi bl fLFkfr ij izfroknh dey dqekj tSu dh rjQ ls ;g rdZ vk;k gS fd ;g oknh rFkk izfroknh la- 2 ds chp nqjfHk&lafèk gS ijUrq U;k;ky; ;g Li’V djuk vko”;d ikrk gS fd ;fn nqjfHk&laf/k dk rdZ izfroknh dh rjg ls j[kk x;k gS rks og ,slh nqjfHk laf/k dks lkfcr djsA i=koyh ij ,slk dksbZ lk{; miyCèk ugha gS ftlls oknh rFkk izfroknh la- 2 ds chp dksbZ nqjfHk laf/k gksuk fu’df’kZr gSA blds Bhd foijhr pw¡fd izfroknh la- 1 gh 3500@& #- fdjk;k izfrekg Lo;a oknh dks vnk dj jgk gS blfy, ,slk dksbZ lansg ugha jgrk fd oknh dk ,slh fdlh nqjfHk laf/k esa gkFk jgk gks ftlesa og izfroknh la- 2 ls lh/ks fdjk;k ysus ds ctk; izfroknh la- 1 dey dqekj tSu ds }kjk fdjk;s dh /kujkf”k dks izkIr djrk jgkA y?kqokn ds oknh gjh pan xqIrk }kjk y?kqokn esa izLrqr izi= 84 x dh jlhn la- 2 o 3 ds ijh”khyu ls Hkh ;gh Li’V gS fd twu 03 rd dk fdjk;k 3500@& izfrekg dh nj ls izfroknh dey dqekj tSu us tfj;s pSd 80 x o 81 x vnk fd;s gsaA blfy, ;g fdlh Hkh izdkj ls fo”oluh; ugha gS fd izfroknh ua- 2 j?kqukFk dks oknh us izfrokn i= esa of.kZr lwph ^x* esa fdjk;snkj u j[kk gks tcfd ewy vuqca/k izi= 113 d ds fu’iknu dks Lohdkj djus ds dkj.k oknh ds i{k esa bruk rF; lkfcr gksrk gS fd mDr laiw.kZ lk{; ds Øe esa okLro esa izfroknh j?kqukFk okyk tks Hkkx [kkyh gksuk bl vuqca/k izi= esa fy[kk x;k gS] ml Hkkx dh fdjk;snkjh izfroknh dey dqekj tSu }kjk Lo;a ys yh xbZ Fkh vkSj ;g izfroknh j?kqukFk okLro esa dey dqekj izfroknh dk f”kdeh fdjk;snkj gSA i=koyh ij blls vU;Fkk dksbZ ekSf[kd vFkok fyf[kr lk{; miyC/k ugha gS blfy, izfroknh dey dqekj tSu ds fo#) ;b rF; lkfcr gS fd okLro esa izfroknh la- 2 j?kqukFk izfroknh dey dqekj tSu dk f”kdeh fdjk;snkj gS ftlls fdjk;s dh /kujkf”k izfroknh la- 1 gh izkIr dj jgk gSAÞ ßtgka rd 3500@& #i;s izfrekg fdjk;k vnk djus dk iz”u gS] bl laca/k esa i=koyh ij ;g Hkh lk{; miyC/k gS fd oknh gjh pan xqirk }kjk bl y?kqokn dks ;ksftr djus ls iwoZ izfroknh dey dqekj tSu dks fdjk;s dh ekax djrs gq, fdjk;snkjh lekIr djus dk uksfVl fn- 1 flrEcj 03 dks mlds vf/koDrk ds ek/;e ls fHktok;k gS tks i=koyh ij izi= 8x gSA izfroknh dey dqekj tSu }kjk bldk izR;qÙkj izi= 23x fn;k x;k gSA izfroknh dey dqekj tSu us lk{kh ds :i esa izfrijh{kk ds vUrxZr ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd mDr uksfVl mls izkIr gqvk gS vkSj mldk izR;qÙkj Hkh mlus vius vf/koDrk ls fHktok;k gSA izfroknh la- 1 }kjk gh lk{; ds vUrxZr bl uksfVl ds izR;qÙkj esa 10]500@& #i;s dk pSd fHktokuk vkSj blls rhu ekg dk fdjk;k gksuk Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS blfy, ;g vafre :i ls fu’df’kZr gS fd izfroknh dey dqekj tSu oknh }kjk y?kqokn lafLFkr djrs le; izfrokn i= esa of.kZr lwph d [k o x rhuksa dks feykdj 3500@& #i;s ekgokj dk fdjk;snkj jgk gSaÞ ßbl izdkj mijksDr lk{; ds foospu ls ;g fu’df’kZr gS fd izfroknh la-1 dey dqekj tSu okni= dh lwph esa of.kZr lEifÙk ftls y?kqokn dks oknh gjh pan izfroknh dey dqekj tSu dks igys gh ,dek= fdjk;snkj 3500@& #i;s ekfld ij gksuk dgdj vk;k gS] blh izdkj 3500@& #i;s izfrekg dk fdjk;snkj gksuk fu’df’kZr gSA mijksDr lk{; ds foospu ls ;g Hkh lkfcr gS fd izfroknh la- 1 dey dqekj tSu us gh ifjlj dks izfroknh la- 2 j?kqukFk dks mi fdjk;snkjh ij ns fn;k gSAÞ 19. As will appear from the aforesaid findings that in reply to the notice i.e. paper no. 23 ga, the defendant has sent the rent amounting to Rs. 10500/- for a period of three months. FINDINGS OF THE JUDGE, SMALL CAUSE COURT ON POINT NO. 3 20. So far as point no. 3 of suit no. 27 of 2003 with regard to the applicability of U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972, the trial court has recorded the finding that U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972 is not applicable to the building in dispute as the rent is more than Rs. 2000/- per month. FINDINGS OF THE JUDGE, SMALL CAUSE COURT ON POINT NOS. 4 & 6 21. While deciding Point Nos. 4 and 6 with regard to the tenancy of the defendant no. 1, Kamal Kumar Jain and the defendant no. 3, Chandra Kanta Jain, the trial court has recorded the finding that Chandra Kanta Jain and Kamal Kumar Jain are single unit and they constitute the single tenancy of the disputed property being the husband and wife. Finding has also been recorded that Smt. Chandrakanta Jain was not the tenant of Hari Chand on a sum of Rs. 500/- independently and Kamal Kumar Jain, being the head of the family, was paying Rs. 2100/- for the portion in his tenancy. The trial court has recorded the findings to the following effect :- ßJherh pUæ dkUrk tSu oknxzLr laifÙk esa 500@& #i;s ekfld dh fdjk;snkj ugha gSAÞ ßizfroknh la- 1 dey dqekj tSu dsoy izfrokn i= dh lwph ^d* esa nf”kZr laifÙk dk 1600@& #i;s ekfld dk fdjk;snkj ugha gS cfYd izfrokn i= dh lwph ^d* o ^[k* esa nf”kZr laifÙk dk ,d lkFk 2100@& #i;s izfrekg dk fdjk;snkj flrEcj] 1999 rd jgk gSAÞ FINDINGS OF THE JUDGE SMALL CAUSE COURT ON POINT NO. 5 22. So far as point no. 5 of the suit no. 27 of 2003 with regard to the counter claim is concerned, the trial court has observed that the counter claim of the defendant no. 1 with regard to declaration of tenancy rights is not maintainable. Further, there was no foundation with regard to counter claim of the revisionists. 5 22. So far as point no. 5 of the suit no. 27 of 2003 with regard to the counter claim is concerned, the trial court has observed that the counter claim of the defendant no. 1 with regard to declaration of tenancy rights is not maintainable. Further, there was no foundation with regard to counter claim of the revisionists. The finding recorded by the trial court is quoted below :- ßoknh gjhpUn xqIrk us jsfIydk nsrs gq, fdjk;s dh lEifÙk tks ^lwph d] [k] x* esa of.kZr gS] lHkh dks ,deq“r dey dqekj tSu dks izfrekg #i;s 3500@& dh nj ij fdjk;snkjh ij nsuk dgk gSA izfroknh dey dqekj tSu dks oknh }kjk uksfVl fdjk;snkjh lekfIr gsrq fn;k x;k gSA izfroknh dey dqekj tSu }kjk vkSipkfjd lk{; lekfIr dh mn~?kks’k.kk ds i`’Bkadu ls bls blh izdkj Lohdkj dj fy;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa tc fd bl ij vU; dksbZ lk{; ugha ykbZ xbZ gS rFkk ewyokn ds okn fcUnq la- 1 o 2 rFkk y?kqokn fcUnq la- 1] 2] 4 ,oa 6 fu’df’kZr fd, tk pqds gSa fd pUædkUrk i`Fkd ls 500@& #i;s izfrekg dh fdjk;snkj ugha jgh gSA izfroknh dey dqekj Hkh lwph d esa nf”kZr #- 1600@& izfrekg dk fdjk;snkj ugha jgk gSA mlh ds }kjk izfroknh la- 2 dks #i;s 1400@& esa mifdjk;snkjh lwph ^x* esa of.kZr lEifÙk dks voSèk :i ls lEifÙk gLrkarj.k vf/kfu;e ds izkfo/kkuksa ds foijhr ns fn;k x;k gSA U;k;ky; dh jk; esa izfroknh dk dkmaVj Dyse vc fof/kd :i ls iks’k.kh; ugha jg x;k gSA bl izdkj fcUnq la- 5 izfroknh ds fo#) o oknh gjhpan ds i{k esa bl izdkj fu’df’kZr fd;k tkrk gS fd izfroknh dk dkmaVj Dyse fof/kd :i ls iks’k.kh; ugha gSAÞ FINDINGS OF THE JUDGE, SMALL CAUSE COURT ON POINT NO. 7 AS WELL AS OVERALL DISCUSSION 23. So far as point no. 7 with regard to relief is concerned, the trial court has recorded the finding that the plaintiff is entitled to get the relief of eviction along wtih the recovery of rent in arrears to the extent of Rs. 11629/- besides taxes 1439.50. The trial court has also recorded that the plaintiff is entitled to get Rs. 4500/- per month towards mesne profit from the date of termination of tenancy till the date of handing over the possession. 11629/- besides taxes 1439.50. The trial court has also recorded that the plaintiff is entitled to get Rs. 4500/- per month towards mesne profit from the date of termination of tenancy till the date of handing over the possession. The findings of the trial court are as under- ßcsn[kyh gsrq iathÑr uksfVl Hksts tkus ds laca/k esa izfroknh us ,d fHké dFku fd;k gS fd oknh ‘kM+;U= dj ds izfroknh dey dqekj tSu dks vius vf/koDrk ds ikl ys x;k Fkk vkSj >wBh ikorh izsf’kr dj ds Lo;a gh lwpuki= dk mÙkj cukdj vius vf/koDrk ds ek/;e ls izfroknh la- 1 dks fHktok fn;k gSA tgka rd uksfVl izkfIr dk laca/k gS] izi= la- 8x uksfVl 1 flrEcj 2003 dks oknh gjhpan }kjk vius vf/koDrk ds tfj;s izfroknh dey dqekj tSu dks iathÑr Mkd ls fHktok;k tkuk fofnr gSA bl izi= esa Hkh uksfVl izkfIr ds 30 fnu ds ckn fdjk;snkjh lekfIr dh lwpuk izfroknh la- 1 dks nh xbZ gS bls izfroknh la- 1 us bUdkj ugha fd;k gSA izfroknh la- 2 Jh j?kqukFk us Hkh vius izfrokn i= esa csn[kyh ds uksfVl dh izkfIr dks Lohdkj fd;k gSA i=koyh ij 23 x izi= mDr uksfVl dk izR;qÙkj izfroknh la- 1 }kjk fnukad 27-9-2003 dks fn;k tkuk fofnr gS ftlesa izfroknh dh rjQ ls 3500@& #i;s izfrekg fdjk;k Lohdkj djrs gq, ;g dFku fd;k gS fd fnukad 1-7-03 ls 30-9-03 dk fdjk;k og pSd }kjk Hkst jgk gSA blls oknh }kjk j[kk x;k bruk rF; iq’V gks tkrk gS fd ml vof/k dk fdjk;k cdk;k gS tSlk fd oknh crkdj vk;k gS] izfroknhx.k ij “ks’k gSA i=koyh ij 67 x fn- 9-9-03 dh ikorh e; Mkd[kkus dh eksgj ds i=koyh ij gS ftldh izkfIr ls bUdkj ugha fd;k x;k gSA blfy, ;g blh izdkj izfroknh la-1 dks izkIr gksuk lkfcr gSA izfroknh }kjk izfrokni= esa fd, x, dFku fd oknh }kjk mls vius gkFk ls lwpuk nsdj ikorh izkIr dj yh gS] drbZ vlR; dFku gksuk fu’df’kZr gSA tgka rd cdk;k fdjk;s dks pSd ls Hksts tkus dk dFku gS] izfrijh{kk esa izfroknh dey dqekj us ml pSd dks okil izkIr gks tkus dk dFku fd;k gSA blh pSd dks 3 ekg dk fdjk;k 10500@& #i;s bdV~Bk Hkstk tkuk Hkh izfrijh{kk esa Lohdkj fd;k gS ftlls ;g rF; Hkh lkfcr gks tkrk gS fd oknh us ftl izdkj cdk;k fdjk;k izfroknhx.k ij gksuk crk;k gS og blh izdkj vkSj mruh gh jkf”k izfroknh ij cdk;k gSA izfroknhx.k dh rjQ ls ,slk Hkh dFku ugah fd;k x;k fd okLro esa okVj VSDl dk cdk;k muds }kjk ns; u gks tSlk fd oknh dFku djds vk;k gSA blfy;s oknh bl cdk;k VSDl dks Hkh izfroknhx.k ls blh izdkj izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSAÞ ßoknh }kjk 7000@& #- izfrekg fdjk;snkjh lekIr gksus ds ckn ls e/;kof/k ykHk ekaxk x;k gS bl laca/k esa i=koyh dk ifj”khyu djus ij ;g fofnr gksrk gS fd oknh }kjk ,slk dksbZ rF; U;k;ky; ds le{k ugha j[kk x;k gS fd okLro esa fookfnr lEifÙk tgka fLFkr gS mldk cktkj Hkko vf/kd gks pqdk gS vkSj oknh dks okLrfod :i ls n[ky u fn;s tkus ds dkj.k izfrekg 7000@& #- {kfr gks jgh gSA bldh foijhr izfroknh us izfrijh{kk esa oknh dh gh i`PNk ij ;g Li’V fd;k gS fd tehu ds Hkko c<+s gSa ijUrq tgka fookfnr lEifÙk fLFkr gS ogka ij vkbZ-Mh-ih-,y- QSDVªh can gksus ls tehu dk ewY; ?kVk gSA U;k;ky; dh jk; esa pwafd izfroknhx.k dk vf/kdkj fookfnr lEifÙk ij n[ky cuk, j[kus dk lekIr gks pqdk gS blfy, ml ij fdjk;s dh lEifÙk dk iz;ksx djus ds fy, {kfriwfrZ vnk djus dk nkf;Ro curk gS vr% ftl frfFk ls izfroknhx.k dh fdjk;snkjh lekIr gks xbZ gS oknh e/;kof/k ykHk ikus dk vf/kdkjh gSA tSlk fd fof/k oknh dh rjQ ls 2005 ¼58½ ,-,y-vkj- 650 lqizhe dksVZ eS- vkRekjke izksiVhZt izk- fy- cuke eS- QSMjy eksVlZ izk- fy- esa Hkh fu’df’kZr fd;k x;k gS fd fdjk;snkjh dh lekfIr ds ckn ls ;fn fdjk;snkj n[ky ugha nsrk gS vkSj dCts esa cuk jgrk gS rks ,slk fdjk;snkj mruh {kfriwwfrZ vnk djus dk nkf;Roghu gksxk ftl nj ij HkouLokeh bls [kkyh gksus ij iqu% fdjk;snkjh esa ns ldrk gksA mDr fof/k ds vuq:i U;k;ky; ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds }kjk vo/kkfjr fof/k ls iw.kZ :i ls lger gS] ijUrq oknh }kjk Lo;a ;g lkfcr u djus ls fd okLro esa ;fn mls fdjk;snkjh dh lekfIr ds ckn n[ky fey x;k gksrk rks og mls fdrus fdjk;s ij ns ldrk FkkA U;k;ky; bls 7000@& #- izfrekg {kfriwfrZ fn;k tkuk mfpr ugha ikrk gSA pwafd oknh us ,slk Li’V ugha fd;k gS fd fookfnr lEifÙk fdl izdkj 7000@& #- ekfld fdjk;s ij mB ldrh Fkh] fQj Hkh ln~Hkkfod :i ls orZeku ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa tSlk fd lHkh lEifÙk;ksa ds Hkko c<+s gSa oknh gjh pan dks izfroknhx.k ls ;g jkf”k 4500@& #- izfrekg e/;kof/k ykHk ds :i esa fnyk;k tkuk U;k;laxr gksxkA ßvr% oknh gjhpUn csn[kyh ds vuqrks’k ds lkFk cdk;k fdjk;k #- 11629@&] cdk;k dj dh jkf”k #- 1439-50 #- ,oa e/;kof/k ykHk ds :i esa 4500@& #- izfrekg fdjk;k lekfIr dh frfFk ls n[ky nsus dh frfFk rd izfroknhx.k ls izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSAÞ 24. On the basis of aforesaid, the trial court has decreed the suit. 25. As will appear from the aforesaid findings that the revisionist-defendant no. 1 has paid the rent at the rate of Rs. 3500/- per month. I do not find any illegality in the aforesaid findings. SUBMISSION ABOUT SEPARATE TENANCIES 26. Counsel for the revisionists has tried to demonstrate that the entire tenancies were separate. 27. It is evident from the perusal of the paper no. 68c which is an application filed by Kamal Kumar Jain in the court of Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Rishikesh that he was a tenant of property no. 3, Adarsh Nagar, Hira Lal Marg, Rishikesh on a sum of Rs. 2100/-. His admission to that effect is quoted below :- ßfuosnu gS] fd mijksDr okn esa izkFkhZ foi{kh ds Hkou 3] vkn”kZ uxj] ghjkyky ekxZ] _f’kds”k ds izFke ry ds ,d Hkkx esa 2100@& #i;s ekfld dk fdjk;snkj gSA tks jsUV dUVªksy ,DV esa ugha vkrk gSA lkFk gh eSa Hkou dj] ty dj Hkh vyx ls vnk djrk gw¡A ;g fd fdjk;k pSd iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad] _f’kds”k ds }kjk fn;k tkrk gSA ftldh QksVks LVsV layXu dh tkrh gSAÞ 28. The notice dated 1st September, 2003 i.e. paper no. 8ga sent to Shri Kamal Kumar Jain by Shri T.S. Bindra, advocate on behalf of Hari Chand Gupta terminating the tenancy of Kamal Kumar Gupta reads as under :- “Sir, Under Instructions from my client Shri Harichand Gupta S/o Shri Harnam Dass, R/o 90-Dehradun Road, Rishikesh, District Dehradun, I hereby serve you with a notice as under :- 1. That you are a month to month tenant of my client in repsect of a portion of property bearing No. 3, Adarsh Nagar, Heeralal Marg, Rishikesh, District Dehradun, comprising of three rooms, kitchen latrine, bathroom and verandah situated in the first floor and two rooms, kitchen, latrine, bathroom and verandah situated in the second floor on a monthly rent of Rs. 3500/- besides taxes. 2. That in addition to the rent, you are also liable to pay water tax @ 12.5% to my client. 3. That the provisions of UP Act 13 of 1972 are not applicable to the premises in question. 4. That you are a bad pay master and you have committed defaults in payment of the rent and taxes. You have not paid any rent to my client since 1.7.2003. 3. That the provisions of UP Act 13 of 1972 are not applicable to the premises in question. 4. That you are a bad pay master and you have committed defaults in payment of the rent and taxes. You have not paid any rent to my client since 1.7.2003. 5. That you have also sublet the second floor of the premises under your tenancy without the consent of my client to Shri Raghunath for valuable consideration. 6. That my client does not wish to keep you as his tenant. 7. That uptill 31.8.2003 the following amount is due from you to my client. a) Arrears of rent from 1.7.2003 to 31.8.2003 @ Rs. 3500/- p.m. Rs. 7,000/- b) Water Tax @ 12.5% from 1.7.2003 to 31.8.2003 Rs. 875/- 8. That you are liable to pay to my client a sum of Rs. 7000/- on account of arrears of rent due up to 31.8.2003 and Rs. 875/- on account of arrears of taxes, along with Rs. 1100/- towards cost of this notice, within 30 days from the date of issue of this notice. 9. That my client determines your tenancy with effect from the expiry of 30 days from the day following the service of this notice, in respect of the property under your tenancy and calls upon you to quit, vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the property under your tenancy, on the expiry of the said period and also pay the arrears of rent and taxes due up to the date of determination of your tenancy and cost of this notice, failing which my client shall be forced to file a suit against you for your ejectment, recovery of arrears of rent and taxes due up to the date of determination of your tenancy and mesne profits at the rate of 7,000/- per month, from the date of determination of your tenancy till the date physical possession of the property is delivered to my client, at your cost, risk and responsibility.” 29. Paper no. 23 ga is the reply dated 27.9.2003 of the aforesaid notice sent by Shri Avneesh Kumar Agarwal, Advocate on behalf of Kamal Kumar Jain to Hari Chand Gupta and his advocate Shri T.S. Bindra, categorically stated that Kamal Kumar Jain was the tenant on a sum of Rs. 3500/- per month. Admission to that effect is quoted below :- “Sh. 23 ga is the reply dated 27.9.2003 of the aforesaid notice sent by Shri Avneesh Kumar Agarwal, Advocate on behalf of Kamal Kumar Jain to Hari Chand Gupta and his advocate Shri T.S. Bindra, categorically stated that Kamal Kumar Jain was the tenant on a sum of Rs. 3500/- per month. Admission to that effect is quoted below :- “Sh. Kamal Kumar Jain S/o Sh. Chander Bhan Jain resident of 3, Adarsh Nagar, has placed before me your notice dated 1.9.03 sent on behalf of your client Sh. Hari Chand Gupta and has further instructed me to write you as under :- Contents of para (1) of your notice as far as it relates to the accommodation under the tenancy of my client are admitted, however it is denied that the monthly rental of the accommoodation is Rs. 3500/- besides taxes. The agreed rental is only Rs. 3500/- inclusive taxes.” 30. The defendant no. 1, Kamal Kumar Jain, in his cross-examination has admitted the fact that he had received the notice dated 1.9.2003 i.e. paper no. 8 ga sent by the advocate of Hari Chand Gupta and in furtherance of that he has also sent a notice dated 27.9.2003 i.e. paper no. 23 ga through his advocate to Hari Chand Gupta. The defendant Kamal Kumar Jain has also admitted in his cross-examination that in the said notice he has admitted to be the tenant of Hari Chand Gupta and has sent a cheque of Rs. 10500/- to Hari Chand Gupta towards the rent for the three months. The notice dated 27.9.2003 is quoted below :- “Sh. Kamal Kumar Jain S/o Sh. Chander Bhan Jain resident of 3, Adarsh Nagar, has placed before me your notice dated 1.9.03 sent on behalf of your client Sh. Hari Chand Gupta and has further instructed me to write you as under :- 1. That contents of para (1) of your notice as far as it relates to the accommodation under the tenancy of my client are admitted, however it is denied that the monthly rental of the accommodation is Rs. 3500/- besides taxes. The agreed rental is only Rs. 3500/- inclusive taxes. 2. That the allegation of Para (2) of your notice are wrong and denied, my client is not entitled to pay the water tax. 3. That para (3) of your notice needs no reply. 4. 3500/- besides taxes. The agreed rental is only Rs. 3500/- inclusive taxes. 2. That the allegation of Para (2) of your notice are wrong and denied, my client is not entitled to pay the water tax. 3. That para (3) of your notice needs no reply. 4. That allegation of para (4) of your notice are wrong and denied, my client has been paying the rent regularly, my client had sent rent for the month of July and August through M.O. but your client has refused to accept the same, prior to the sending of the amount, my client has also tendered cheque no. 460373 dated 15.8.2003 for Rs. 3500/- but your client has not got the same encashed. The rent for the month of September, 2003 was also tendered through M.O. but the same was refused by your client. 5. That allegation of para (5) of your notice are absolutely wrong and denied. It is emphatically denied that my client has sublet the second floor portion to Sh. Raghunath. The said second floor portion is also under the use and occupation of my client. 6. That allegation of para (6) of your notice are wrong and denied. 7. That content of para (7) and (8) of your notice as stated are wrong and denied, my client is not liable to pay any amount by way of taxes however since your client has refused to accept the rent, my client once again sending you a cheque no. 460383 dated 27.9.2003 for Rs. 10,500/- on account of rent for the period 1.7.03 to 30.9.03. 8. That allegation of para (9) of your notice are wrong and denied. Your client has no authority to terminate the tenancy of my client. You are therefore, hereby, called upon to advise your client not to enter into any frivolous controversy and in case he is ill-advised to file any suit against my client then in that event the same shall be contested by my client at the cost of expenses of your client, including a sum of Rs. 1100/- as cost of this notice which please note.” ADMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE REVISIONISTS WITH REGARD TO SINGLE TENANCY AND ADMISSION OF THE RENT BEING PAID BY THE REVISIONIST NO. 1 FOR THE ENTIRE PREMISES 31. A perusal of paper no. 1100/- as cost of this notice which please note.” ADMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE REVISIONISTS WITH REGARD TO SINGLE TENANCY AND ADMISSION OF THE RENT BEING PAID BY THE REVISIONIST NO. 1 FOR THE ENTIRE PREMISES 31. A perusal of paper no. 113 C i.e. agreement entered into between Hari Chand Gupta and Kamal Kumar Jain reveals that earlier Kamal Kumar Jain has taken on rent three rooms, kitchen, bathroom, Verandah on first floor and one room set on second floor on a sum of Rs. 2100/- per month and later on, in addition to the above tenancy, Kamal Kumar Jain has also taken on rent two room set on the second floor in combinedly on a sum of Rs. 3500/- per month. 2100/- per month and later on, in addition to the above tenancy, Kamal Kumar Jain has also taken on rent two room set on the second floor in combinedly on a sum of Rs. 3500/- per month. The agreement to that effect is quoted below :- ß;g fd izFke i{k dh fcfYMax 3 vkn”kZ uxj] ghjkyky ekxZ] _f’kds”k ftlds Hkwry ds Hkkx ij vk;dj dk;kZy; fLFkr gS o izFkery ds vfxze Hkkx ij rhu dejksa] fdpu] ckFk:e] cjkenk o f}rh; ry ij ,d dejk dk lwV izFkei{k us f}rh; i{k dks 2100@& #i;s ekfld ij fdjk;s ij fn;k FkkA ;g fd izFke i{k }kjk ekuuh; U;k;ky; nsgjknwu flfoy tt esa f}rh; i{k ls mDr fdjk;snkjh okys Hkkx dks [kkyh djkus gsrq eqdnek nk;j fd;k gqvk gS tks ekuuh; U;k;ky; es afopkjk/khu gSA ;g fd mDr nksuksa i{kksa us vkilh le>kSrk fuEufyf[kr “krks± ij fd;k gS ftlesa nksuksa i{k o muds mÙkjkf/kdkjh vFkok okfjlku Hkh ikcUn jgasxsA 1- ;g fd f}rh; i{k ry ds vfxze Hkkx ij izFkei{k ds 2 dejs dk lSV tks vyx ls [kkyh iM+k Fkk og Hkh f}rh; i{k dks fdjk;s ij ns fn;k gS rFkk vc Hkh dqy feykdj izFkei{k us mDr Hkkx f}rh; i{k dks 3500@& #i;s ekfld ij ns fn;k gsa 2- ;g fd mDr fdjk;snkjh 3500@& #i;s ekfld dh dsoy rhu o’kZ ds fy, ;kfu 1-10-2002 ls 31-9-2005 rd jgsxhA blds i”pkr~ f}rh; i{k dks mDr Hkou ds fdjk;snkjh okys Hkkx dks [kkyh djuk gksxkA rFkk izFke i{k dh bPNk ls fdjk;k fuf”pr dj ,d lky dk fdjk;snkjh dk le; vkSj c<+k;k tk ldrk gSA 3- ;g fd rhu o’kZ iwjs gksus ds i”pkr~ izFke i{k }kjk lwpuk nsus ij f}rh; i{k dks mDr Hkou ls viuh fdjk;snkjh okys Hkkx dks rqjUr [kkyh djuk gksxkA ;fn f}rh; i{k fdjk;snkjh okys Hkkx dks [kkyh ugha djsxk rks mDr frfFk ls 7000@& #i;s ekfld fdjk;k f}rh; i{k izFkei{k dks vnk djus dk ftEesnkj gksxkA 4- ;g fd fdjk;k gj pkyw ekg dh 15 rkjh[k rd f}rh; i{k izFke i{k dks vnk djsxkA 5- ;g fd vuqca/k i= uksVjh }kjk vFkok jftLVMZ vuqca/k tks Hkh mfpr gks] f}rh; i{k dks djuk gS vkSj bldh ,d izfr ekuuh; U;k;ky; dks tgka dgha Hkh eqdnek py jgk gks esa nksuksa ds gLrk{kjksa ls is”k dh tk,xhA vr% ;g vuqca/k i= vkt fnukad 17-10-2002 dks LFkku nsgjknwu esa fy[k fn;k x;k rkfd lun jgs vkSj oDr t:jr ij dke vkosAÞ 32. Paper no. 60 c is the list of documents filed on behalf of the plaintiff, which reads as under :- “1. Certified copy of the application for withdrawal of suit moved by Smt. Chandrakanta Jain in suit no. 835/2001 with the endorsement of No objection of Shri S.C. Virmani, Advocate, along with copy of the agreement dated 17.10.2002 annexed therewith. 2. Certified copy of application dated 10.1.2002 moved by Shri Kamal Kumar Jain in case no. 3/2001 before the Rent Control & Eviction Officer, Rishikesh. 3. Certified copy of order dated 10.1.2002 passed by learned Rent Control & Eviction Officer, Rishikesh, in case no. 3/2001 Shri Chandrapal versus Shri Hari Chand Gupta. 4. Certificate dated 4th October, 2004 issued by the Manager - Punjab & Sind Bank, Rishikesh. 33. Further, the application for withdrawal of the suit no. 835 of 2001 has been marked as paper no. 61 C, which reads as under :- ßokfnuh fuEu fuosnu djrh gS %& 1- ;g fd okfnuh o izfroknh esa lfU/k gks x;h gSA okfnuh viuk mDr okn pykuk ugha pkgrh gSA okn O;; i{kdkj Lo;a ogu djsaxsA lfU/k dh Nk;k izfr lkFk yxk;h tk jgh gSA 2- ;g fd okfnuh dk okn [kf.Mr dj fn;k tkosA vr% ekuuh; egksn; ls uez izkFkZuk gS fd okfnuh dk okn [kf.Mr fd;k tkosA 34. The certified copy of application dated 10.1.2002 i.e. paper no. 62 C moved by Shri Kamal Kumar Jain in case no. 3/2001 before the Rent Control & Eviction Officer, Rishikesh, reads as under :- ßfuosnu gS fd mijksDr okn esa izkFkhZ foi{kh ds Hkou 3 vkn”kZ uxj ghjkyky ekxZ] _f’kds”k ds izFke ry ds ,d Hkkx esa 2100@& #i;s ekfld dk fdjk;snkj gS tks jsUV dUVªksy ,DV esa ugha vkrk gSA ftlds lkFk gh eSa Hkou dj] ty dj Hkh vyx ls vnk djrk gw¡A ;g fd fdjk;k cSad iatkc fla/k cSad] _f’kds”k ds }kjk fn;k tkrk gSA ftldh QksVks LVsV layXu dh tkrh gSA vr% ekuuh; egksn; ls fuosnu gS fd mijksDr okn dks [kkfjt fd;k tkuk U;k;fgr esa vko”;d gS ftls [kkfjt fd;k tk;sA 35. As will appear from paper no. 63 C i.e. certified copy of order dated 10.1.2002 passed by learned Rent Control & Eviction Officer, Rishikesh, in case no. 3/2001 Shri Chandrapal versus Shri Hari Chand Gupta, Kamal Kumar Jain was the tenant at the rate of Rs. As will appear from paper no. 63 C i.e. certified copy of order dated 10.1.2002 passed by learned Rent Control & Eviction Officer, Rishikesh, in case no. 3/2001 Shri Chandrapal versus Shri Hari Chand Gupta, Kamal Kumar Jain was the tenant at the rate of Rs. 2100/- per month of a portion on the ground floor of the disputed property. The order dated 10.1.2002 passed by the Rent Control Eviction Officer is quoted below :- ß10-1-2002 vkt ;g i=koyh is”k gqbZA oknh vf/koDrk gkftjA dey dqekj tSu] fu- 3 vkn”kZ uxj ghjkyky ekxZ] _f’kds”k }kjk izLrqr izk- i= fnukad 10-1-2002 }kjk voxr djk;k x;k gS fd os fookfnr LFky ds izFke ry ds ,d Hkkx esa 2100@& ekfld fdjk;snkj gSa tks fd iatkc fla/k cSad] _f’kds”k }kjk vnk fd;k tkrk gS] ftldh QksVks izfr layXu dh xbZ gSA oknh vf/koDrk }kjk izkFkZuk i= ij dk;Zokgh gsrq dksbZ cy ugha fn;k x;k gSA vr% okn [kf.Mr fd;k tkrk gSA i=koyh okn vko”;d dk;Zokgh nkf[ky n¶rj dh tk;AÞ 36. Paper no. 64 C i.e. certificate dated 4th October, 2004 issued by the Manager - Punjab & Sind Bank, Rishikesh also clarifies that Kamal Kumar Jain was paying the rent for the entire premises in his tenancy at the rate of Rs. 3500/- per month. The certificate issued by the Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank, Rishikesh reads as under :- TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN This is to certify that the following cheques have been debited to a/c M/s Jainko Cloth House on the dates mentioned against the amount of cheques :- Cheque No. Date of Amt. of Encashed by us Cheque Cheque through clearing 70427 20.12.02 3500/- 24.12.02 70429 22.02.03 3500/- 24.02.03 Please note that the above cheques were drawn in favour of Mr. Hari Chand Gupta. 37. Paper no. 66 C is the list of documents filed on behalf of the plaintiff which includes the following documents :- 1. Acknowledgement. 2. Certified copy of application dated 10.1.2002 filed by Kamal Kumar Jain before the Rent Control & Eviction Officer, Rishikesh. 3. Certified copy of order dated 10.1.2002 passed by the Rent Control & Eviction Officer in case no. 3 of 2001. 4. Certified copy dated 29.2.2004 issued by Oriental Bank of Commerce, Rishikesh. 5. Certified copy of legal notice dated 1.10.1999 given to Shri Kamal Kumar Jain. 6. 3. Certified copy of order dated 10.1.2002 passed by the Rent Control & Eviction Officer in case no. 3 of 2001. 4. Certified copy dated 29.2.2004 issued by Oriental Bank of Commerce, Rishikesh. 5. Certified copy of legal notice dated 1.10.1999 given to Shri Kamal Kumar Jain. 6. Certified copy of reply dated 19.10.1999 given by the defendant to the legal notice. 7. Copy of reply dated 3.10.2003 to Shri Kamal Kumar Jain. 8. Postal receipt. 38. In addition to the above the plaintiff has also filed the documents as per paper no. 79 C. Paper no. 79 C is quoted below :- 1. Certified copy of cheque dated 22.4.2003 of Union Bank of India, Rishikesh. 2. Certified copy of cheque dated 20.6.2003 of Union Bank of India, Rishikesh. 3. Certified copy of cheque dated 20.01.2003 of Union Bank of India, Rishikesh. 4. Receipt Book. 5. Receipt Book. 39. A perusal of the above documents show that the cheques were sent by the defendants to the plaintiff in respect of the entire premises at the rate of Rs. 3500/- per month for both the revisionists and the predecessor of the defendant nos. 3 to 7, who are the sub-tenant of the revisionists. 40. A perusal of receipts of rent being nos. 2 and 3 of paper no. 84 ga disclose that Kamal Kumar Jain has paid the rent till the month of June, 2003 @ Rs. 3500/- per month and the cheques i.e. paper no. 80 ga and paper no. 81 ga also corroborate the same. 41. In view of the aforesaid, the revisionists are estopped from alleging that there were two tenancies. The rent of Rs. 3500/- per month was also established. PRINCIPLES OF ESTOPPEL 42. In view of the aforesaid, the revisionist having paid the rent at the rate of Rs. 3500/- per month is bound by their own statement. Section 115 of the evidence Act relates to the estoppel. Section 115 is quoted below:- “115. Estoppel. — When one person has, by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his represen-tative shall be allowed, to deny the truth of that thing.” 43. Section 115 is quoted below:- “115. Estoppel. — When one person has, by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his represen-tative shall be allowed, to deny the truth of that thing.” 43. In Sita Ram Sahu v. Smt. Lalpari Devi & others AIR 1991 SC 1054, it has been stated as under :- “Estoppel is a rule of equity flowing out of fairness striking on behaviour deficient in good faith. It operates a check on spurious conduct by preventing the inducer from taking advantage and assailing forfeiture already accomplished. It is invoked and applied to aid the law in administration of justice.” 44. In volume 2 of the book ‘Sarkar on Evidence’, various case laws have been referred relating to Section 115 of the Evidence Act. It has been observed as under :- “S 115 is founded on the law as laid down in the well known case of Pickard v. Sears, 1832 A & E 468, in which the rule was thus stated :- “Where one by his words or conduct willfully causes another to believe in the existence of a certain state of things and induces him to act on that behalf so as to alter his own previous position, the former is concluded from averring against the latter a different state of things as existing at the same time.” “In Shah Mukhun Lall v. Baboo Sree Kishen Singh (1867-69) 12 Moo Ind App 157 LORD CHELMSFORD observed :- “A man cannot both affirm and disaffirm the same transaction, show its true nature for his own relief, and insist on its apparent character to prejudice his adversary. This principle, so just and reaosnable in itself, and often expressed in the terms, that you cannot both approbate and reprobate. The same transaction has been applied by their Lordship in this Committee to the consideration of Indian Appeals, as one applicable in the courts of that country, which are to administer justice according to equity and good conscience. The maxim is founded, not so much on any positive law, as on the broad and universally applicable principles of justice.” “Lord RUSSELL observed in Dawson Bank Ltd. v. Nippon M K Kaisha, sup:- “Estoppel is not a cause of action. The maxim is founded, not so much on any positive law, as on the broad and universally applicable principles of justice.” “Lord RUSSELL observed in Dawson Bank Ltd. v. Nippon M K Kaisha, sup:- “Estoppel is not a cause of action. It may, if established, assist a plaintiff in enforcing a cause of action by preventing a defendant from denying the existence of some fact essential to establish the cause of action or (to put it in another way) by preventing a defendant from asserting the existence of some fact, the existence of which would destroy the cause of action.” 45. In Algar v. Middlesex County Council [Aug. 4, 1945] All England law Reports Annotated [Vol. 2] page 243, Halsbury’s Laws of England has been referred to the following effect :- “In Halsbury’s Laws of England, Hailsham Edn., Vol 13 para 452, in these words, at p. 400: “Where one has either by words or conduct made to another a representation of fact, either with knowledge of its falsehood or with the intention that it should be acted upon, or has so conducted himself that another would, as a reasonable man, understand that a certain representation and thereby altered his position to his prejudice, an estoppel arises against the party who made the representation, and he is not allowed to aver that the fact is otherwise than he represented it to be.” 46. In view of the aforesaid, the arguments advanced by the counsel for the revisionists with regard to separate tenancies have no substance and I find no force. 47. Since, the rent of the building in dispute is more than Rs. 2000/-, the provisions of U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972 are also not applicable to the building in dispute by virtue of Section 2 (1)(g) of the U.P Act No. 13 of 1972. Section 2(1)(g) of the U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972 is quoted below :- “2. .... (1) ..... (g) any building, whose monthly rent exceeds two thousand rupees;” STATUS ABOUT SUB-TENANTS 48. The defendant-resondents nos. 3 to 7 are the sub-tenants having no independent status after the tenancy of the chief tenant i.e. the revisionist no. 1 has been determined. Section 2(1)(g) of the U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972 is quoted below :- “2. .... (1) ..... (g) any building, whose monthly rent exceeds two thousand rupees;” STATUS ABOUT SUB-TENANTS 48. The defendant-resondents nos. 3 to 7 are the sub-tenants having no independent status after the tenancy of the chief tenant i.e. the revisionist no. 1 has been determined. It is well-settled that the sub-tenant acquires no independent status in view of the judgment of Mohan Lal Garg v. Suresh Chand Jain and others ARC 1994(1) 211, where it has been held as under :- “15. Strong, reliance has been placed on Burmah Shell Oil Distributing v. Khoja Midhat Noor and others, AIR 1988 1470, in which it is held : “It is quite clear that law does not require that the sub-lessee need be made a party, if there was a valid termination of the lease. In all cases where the landlord instituted a suit against the leassee for possession of the land on the basis of a valid notice to quit served on the lessee and did not implead the sub-lessee as a party to the suit, the object of the landlord is to eject the sub-lessee from the land in execution of the decree and such an object is quite lieitimate. The decree in such a suit would bind the sub-lessee.” 16. In Ram Bihari Lal Srivastava v. Smt. Purna Devi and others, 1986 (U.P.) RCC 187, it was held :- “It is well settled that where the tenancy of the tenant-in-chief is terminated, the tenancy of the sub-tenant also comes to an end.” 17. In Sheikh Yusuf v. Jyotish Chandra Banerjee, AIR 1932 Cal. 241, it was held :- “A decree of ejectment passed against a lessee at the instance of a lessor is not binding upon the lessee, but also upon his sub-tenants provided they have no right independent of the right of their lessor in the demised premises.” 18. In M/s Importers and Manufacturers Ltd. v. Pheroze Framroze Taraporewala, AIR 1953 SC 73, it was held :- “Under the Ordinary Law a decree for possession passed against a tenant in a suit for ejectment is binding on a person claiming title under or through that tenant and is executable against such person whether or not he was or was not a party to the suit. The non-joinder of such a peson does not render the decree any the less binding on him. It is in this sense, therefore, that he is not a necessary party to an ejectment suit against the tenant.” 19. ....A decree as against the lessee binds under-tenant also provided the under-tenant has no right indepedent of the right of the lessor meaning thereby that if a sub-tenant claims a right independent of the tenant then only in such a case, such a decree would not be binding.” REVISIONAL SCOPE 49. In Harshvardhan Chokkani vs. Bhupendra N. Patel 2002 SCFBRC 344, the Apex Court has observed as under : “Nonetheless, the High Court is exercising the revisional power which in its very nature is a truncated power. The width of the powers of the Revisional Court cannot be equated with the power of the Appellate Court. In examining the legally and the proprietary of the order under challenge, what is required to be seen by the High Court is whether it is in violation of any statutory provision or a binding precedent or suffers from misreading of the evidence or omission to consider relevant clinching evidence or where the inference drawn from the facts proved in such that no reasonable person could arrive at or the like, it is only in such situations that interference by the High Court in revision in a finding of fact will be justified. Mere possibility of a different view is no ground to interfere in exercise of revisional power. From the above discussion, it is clear that none of the aforementioned reasons exists in this case to justify interference by the High Court.” CONCLUSION 50. In view of the discussion made above, the provisions of U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972 is not applicable to the building in dispute as the tenancy is for more than Rs. 2000/- per month and the rent has been admitted by the defendant in various proceedings as referred above. So far as the premises is concerned, the revisionist no. 1 has admitted that it is a single tenancy as will appear from the compromise recorded above. Further, the sub-tenants having no status, they have no locus standi with regard to the building in dispute. So far as the premises is concerned, the revisionist no. 1 has admitted that it is a single tenancy as will appear from the compromise recorded above. Further, the sub-tenants having no status, they have no locus standi with regard to the building in dispute. Further, in view of the findings of the Judge, Small Cause Court, there being no foundation of the plea alleged in the counter claim and also in view of the admission of the revisionists being tenant, I reject the admission of the revisionists being tenant, I reject the submission of that effect. 51. Further, the mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 4500/- fixed by the Judge, Small Cause Court from the termination of the tenancy requires no interference in view of the judgment of Apex Court in Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. vs. Federal Motors (P) Ltd. reported in (2005) 1 SCC 705. 52. In view of the above, I find no merits in the revision and, therefore, the findings of the Judge, Small Cause Court require no interference under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. 53. Counsel for revisionists Shri S.K. Jain has prayed for time to vacate the premises. Shri Hari Mohan Bhatia holding the brief of Shri Arvind Vashistha has not objected to the grant of time. 54. In view of the above, time is granted to vacate the premises in dispute upto 31st October, 2007 provided the revisionists fulfil the following conditions :- (a) Furnishes the undertaking by 10th August, 2007 to the effect that they will vacate the premises in dispute on or before 31st October, 2007. (b) Pays the entire amount of rent/damages by 10th August, 2007. (c) Pays the monthly damages/mesne profits regularly in the 1st week of every month till the handing over the possession of the premises. 55. In case, the revisionists fail to fulfil any of the conditions made above, the plaintiff-respondent will be entitled to execute the order forthwith. 56. Subject to the aforesaid, revision is dismissed with costs.