JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard Sri Nirdesh Kumar Khandelwal, counsel for the applicant and Sri Alok Singh, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Sri Dharmendra Barthwal, counsel for the respondent. 2. By the present revision filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, the revisionist has prayed for setting aside the order dated 12th October, 2006 passed by the Addl. District Judge/FTC-V, Dehradun. 3. Briefly stated, the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 filed a suit in respect of the premises No. 420, Indira Nagar, Colony, Dehradun of which the defendant is the tenant at the rate of Rs. 3400 per month, which was payable on 7th of every month. Apart from the rent, the defendant is also liable to pay the charges with regard to the electricity consumption. 4. The plaintiff has stated in his plaint that from 1st August, 2004, the defendant has not paid any rent and further from 1st June, 2004, the defendant has not paid the charged with regard to the electricity consumption. In paragraph 4 of the plaint, the plaintiff has specifically stated that the premises in dispute is not covered under the purview of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. A notice was sent to the defendant by registered post on 11th October, 2004 which was received on 14th October, 2004 and as such the tenancy stands terminated on 14th November, 2004 but the defendant has neither paid the rent nor vacated the premises and hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit claiming the rent from 1st August, 2004 to 1st November, 2004. 5. The plaintiff, therefore, has claimed the eviction of the defendant from the premises in dispute as well as for the recovery of the arrear of rent from 1st August, 2004 to 14th November, 2004 to the extent of Rs. 11,786/-. 5. The plaintiff, therefore, has claimed the eviction of the defendant from the premises in dispute as well as for the recovery of the arrear of rent from 1st August, 2004 to 14th November, 2004 to the extent of Rs. 11,786/-. Paragraph 10 of the plaint is quoted below : ß10 ;g fd mijksDr vuqlkj izfroknh oknh dks fuEu jkf’k crkSj fdjk;k] VSDl ,oa cklykr ds :i esa vnk djus dk mÙkjnk;h gS %& d okLrs izfrdkj ¼v½ vo”ks’k fdjk;s dh olwyh gsrq #i;s 11]786@& ij #i;s 1]307-50 [k okLrs izfrdkj c iz”uxr lEifÙk ls izfroknh dh csn[kyh ,oa v/;klu izkfIr ds izfrdkj gsrq ,d o’kZ ds fdjk;s dh jkf”k #i;s 40]800@& ij #i;s 3]482-50 x okLrs izfrdkj l lwpuki= fnukafdr 11-10-04 dh olwyh gsrq #i;s 1]100@& ij #i;s 189-50 ?k okLrs izfrdkj n cklykr okni= okni= izLrqr fd;s tkus dh frfFk rd #i;s 900@& ij #i;s 155-00 ;ksx #i;s 5]134-50 6. The defendant/revisionist has filed the written statement and in paragraph 2 of the written statement, it was admitted that he is continuing as a tenant at the rate of Rs. 3,400/- per month and he has alleged to have deposited the charges with regard to electricity consumption, which according to him was included towards rent amount of Rs. 3,400/-. 7. In paragraph 2 of the plaint, it has been stated as under : ß4 ;g fd iz”uxr lEifÙk vf/kfu;e&13 o’kZ 1972 ds izkfo/kkuksa ls eqDr gSAÞ 8. So far as the averments made in paragraph 4 of the plaint is concerned, the defendant in his written statement has replied as under : 4- ;g fd okni= dh pj.k la[;k 4 ds mÙkj dh dksbZ vko”;drk ugha gSAÞ 9. From the perusal of the pleadings, it is established that the parties have proceeded their case on the assumption that U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is not applicable to the building in dispute. 10. Plaintiff was also examined on oath, who has deposed that so far as the charges with regard to the electricity consumption, the same is not included in the rent. The defendant has not paid the electricity charges. 10. Plaintiff was also examined on oath, who has deposed that so far as the charges with regard to the electricity consumption, the same is not included in the rent. The defendant has not paid the electricity charges. The plaintiff was also cross-examined by the defendant, who has specifically stated as under : ßesjh fdjk;s dh jkf”k esa fo|qr dk pktZ ugha tqM+k FkkA eSa muds fo|qr dk pktZ mudk izkFkZuk ij tek djds tkrk FkkA fo|qr foHkkx esa twu 2004 rd dk fctyh ds pktZ dk dksbZ >xM+k izfroknh ds lkFk esjk ugha gS mlds ckn ;fn tek ugha fd;k tkrk gS rks gh eq>s ysuk gSA 11. The Judge Small Cause Court has decreed the suit for eviction of the defendant/applicant and for recovery of the arrears from 1st August, 2004 to 13.11.2004 at the rate of Rs. 3,400/- per month and further from 14.11.2004 to the date of delivery of the possession, the mesne profits to the extent of Rs. 300/- per day apart from metre charges. 12. During the pendency of the present revision, the defendant/revisionist has filed an application No. 155 of 2007 praying for quashing the entire proceeding in Execution No. 2 of 2006 and for extension of the stay order dated 22.11.2006. The applicant in paragraph 4 of the application has stated that the stay order was granted on 22.11.2003 till the next date of listing, but the respondent no. 2 proceeded the execution despite the order dated 22.11.2006. The defendant/revisionist has also approached this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition No. 1802 of 2006, where this Court has passed the order that if the certified copy of the order dated 27.01.2006 passed by the High Court in Civil Revision No. 80 of 2006 has been filed before the executing court concerned in that event the execution of the decree shall remain stayed. 13. Before dealing with the aforesaid application, it may be pointed out that on 22.12.2006, following order was passed : “Meanwhile, the revisionist is directed to deposit the entire decretal amount as well as monthly upto date rent with the court below within a period of one month” 14. 13. Before dealing with the aforesaid application, it may be pointed out that on 22.12.2006, following order was passed : “Meanwhile, the revisionist is directed to deposit the entire decretal amount as well as monthly upto date rent with the court below within a period of one month” 14. In order to the meet the aforesaid submission, it is necessary to refer the order sheet of the Court below : ß27-1-2007 vkt izkFkZuk i= 21 x U;k;ky; ds le{k e; ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns”k 22 x fuf.kZr _.kh dh rjQ ls izLrqr fd;k x;kA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns”k dk ifj”khyu fd;k x;kA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us fnukad 22-12-06 dks vkns”k ikfjr dj iwoZ esa vne iSjoh esa [kkfjt fuxjkuh dks iquZLFkkfir djrs gq, ;g vknsf”kr fd;k gS fd ;fn dksbZ iwoZ esa varfje LFkxu dk vkns”k gks rks og Hkh iquZLFkkfir ekuk tk;sxkA fuf.kZr _.kh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us U;k;ky; dk /;ku ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr iwoZ vkns”k fnukad 7-12-06 dh rjQ vkÑ’V djk;k gS ftlesa fu’iknu dh dk;Zokgh dks LFkfxr fd;k x;k gS vkSj i=koyh ij ;g izi= 15x gSA i=koyh ds ifj”khyu ls ;g Hkh fofnr gS fd bl vkns”k ds ckn fnukad 16-12-06 dks fuf.kZr _.kh dks mDr fuxjkuh vne iSjoh esa [kkfjt dh xbZ gS ftldks vkKfIr/kkjh us izLrqr djus ds mijkUr fu’iknu dh dk;Zokgh dks pyk;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh gS rn~uqlkj fu’iknu dh dk;Zokgh izkjEHk dj nh xbZ gS rFkk csn[kyh ds laca/k esa vkns”k tkjh gks pqdk gSA i=koyh ij bl le; 11-30 ,ñ,eñ rd fjiksVZ izkIr ugha gS fd okLro esa ekSds ij D;k gSA U;k;ky; ds le{k ;g fLFkfr ;|fi Li’V ugha gS fd fuf.kZr _.kh }kjk vkt fn, x, izkFkZuk i= 21 x dh dksbZ izfr vkKfIr/kkjh dks izkIr Hkh ugha djokbZ xbZ gS ckotwn bl ds rRi”pkr dh dk;Zokgh rn~uqlkj gh LFkfxr dh tkrh gS rFkk vkKfIr /kkjh dks vfoyEc lwfpr fd;k tk,A i=koyh fu;r frfFk dks vfxze vkns”k gsrq is”k gksA ß03-02-2007 okn iqdkjk x;kA Mh-,p- e; fo}ku vf/koDrk gkftj gSA tsñMhñ Lo;a gkftj ugha gS ijUrq muds fo}ku vf/koDrk Jherh cdqy [kaMsyoky ,MoksdsV gkftj gSaA fnñ 2-2-07 dks Mh-,t- dh rjQ ls izkFkZuk i= 27 x izLrqr fd;k x;kA fnñ 2-2-07 dks ikfjr vkns”k ds vuqlkj ,l-vks- clUr fogkj ls fjiksVZ Lo;a gkftj gksdj izkFkZuk i= 25 x ds izdk”k esa ekaxh xbZ FkhA vkt ,l-vks- clUr fogkj mifujh{kd Jh njcku flag iaokj gkftj gSa muds }kjk 28 x fjiksVZ e; thñMhñ jiV lañ 45@20-30 cts fnñ 26-01-07 izLrqr dh xbZA mHk;i{k dh ekStwnxh esa ,l-vks- clUr fogkj }kjk [kqys U;k;ky; ds le{k crk;k x;k fd fookfnr Hkou dk dCtk Mhñ,pñ dks fnñ 25-1-07 dks lkSaius ds ckn tc nwljs fnu 26-1-07 dks fookfnr Hkou ds ckgj “kksj epk;k tk jgk Fkk rks “kkafr Hkax rFkk dksbZ fxj¶rkj fd;k x;k rFkk /kkjk 107] 116 na-iz-la- ds varxZr pkyku fd;k x;kA blds vykok vU; dksbZ dk;Zokgh iqfyl }kjk vey esa ugha ykbZ xbZA fookfnr lEifÙk ij iqfyl }kjk dksbZ rkyk ugha yxk;k x;k vkSj u gh iqfyl ds ikl pkch gS mDr fjiksVZ e; thñMhñ jiV tks dqy 3 fdrk gS] “kkfey fely gksA 26 x izkFkZuk i= dh izfr ds ts Mh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dks iznku ugha dh xbZ gS tc fd muds }kjk bl izkFkZuk i= dh izfr pkgh xbZ gS rkfd og bl esa vkifÙk izLrqr dj lds rFkk lquokbZ gks ldsA vkt gh 25 x dh izfr Mh-,p-] ts-Mh- ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dks iznku djsA 27 x izkFkZuk i= vkt ts-Mh- dh rjQ ls fn;k x;kA “kkfey fely gks rFkk bldh izfr ts-Mh- ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dks vkt gh iznku dh tk;sA i=koyh fnñ 5-2-07 dks okLrs vkifÙk o fuLrkj.k 25 x] 26 x o 27 is”k gksAÞ 15. The decree holder on 22.1.2007 has filed an application before the executing Court and in pursuance of the order dated 22.12.2006, the judgment debtor was required to pay the entire decretal amount, but he has failed to pay the same. Hence, the judgment debtor may be directed to hand-over the possession to the decree-holder by police force. Stay application was allowed on 25.01.2007 and the follwoing order was passed : ß20C izkFkZuk i= fMØhnkj }kjk fookfnr lEifÙk dk dCtk rkyk rksM+dj fnyk;s tkus gsrqA vkns”k gqvk fd LohÑrA i=koyh fu;r frfFk dks is”k gksAÞ 16. The plaintiff has filed a stay vacation application and in paragraphs 2 & 3, it has been stated as under :- “2. That the revisionist is not entitled to any interim order staying the order of the decree and judgment of the court below because the revisionist has not deposited even the decretal amount of Rs. 11,786/- as rent from 1.8.2004 to 13.11.2004 and Rs. 5,250/- as cost of the suit and Rs. 2,09,700/- from 14.11.2004 to 12.10.2006 as damages and compensation for use at the rate of Rs. 300/- per day. This amount of compensation is also the part of the decree so the whole amount of decree is Rs. 2,26,736/-. 3. That the revisionist did not comply the provisions of Order 15 Rule 5 of the C.P.C. during trial before the Judge S.C.C./Additional District Judge F.T.C. 5th Dehradun, respondent no. 2, hence the revisionist/defendant is not legally entitled to take any defense in the present matter and as such is not legally entitled to file the present revision.” 17. Therefore, it is evident from the aforesaid facts that more than a sum of Rs. 2 lacs was outstanding against the applicant for which I do not get any material of having deposited by the defendant. 18. Coming to the merits of the revision, the Judge Small Cause Court has framed three points for determination to the following effect : ß1- D;k oknh oknxzLr lEifÙk dk Lokeh gS rFkk izfroknh mldk fdjk;snkj gS\ ;fn ugha rks izHkko\ 2- D;k oknh izfroknh ls cdk;k fdjk;k] dj o e/;orhZ ykHk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 3- D;k oknh ok¡Nuh; vuqrks’k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 19. So far as the point no. So far as the point no. 1 is concerned, a finding has been recorded that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the plaintiff being the owner of the premises is entitled to evict the defendant. 20. So far as the point no. 2 is concerned, a finding was recorded by the defendant is the tenant at the rate of Rs. 3,400/- per month and the electricity charges are separate which are payable by the defendant-revisionist. 21. The electricity consumption was not included in the rent. 22. Notice was duly proved from the Papers No. 12-Ga, 13-Ga and 14-G, which were duly received on 13.10.2004 and 14.10.2004. Though the defendant has denied his signatures, but the finding of fact has been recorded that the signatures were duly proved. It has been found by the court below that so far as the charges with regard to the electricity consumption are concerned, he has deposited the same separately and as such the same was not a part of rent. So far as the mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 300/- per day is concerned, the Judge Small Cause Court has recorded a finding that the same has not been deposited by the defendant at any point of time and as such the finding that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the rent from 01.08.2004 to 13.11.2004 at the rate of Rs. 3,400/- per month having been recorded by the Judge Small Cause Courts, I find no illegality in the said finding recorded by the Judge Small Cause Court and further from 14.11.2004 up to the delivery of possession Rs. 300/- per month towards mesne profits also require no interference. 23. While deciding the point no. 3, a finding has been recorded that since Act No. 13 of 1972 is not applicable to the building in dispute, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for decree of eviction against the defendant. Section 2 (g) of the Act No. 13 of 1972 reads as under : “[(g) any building whose monthly rent exceeds two thousand rupees]” 24. The aforesaid amendment has been inserted by U.P. Act No. 5 of 1995 w.e.f. 26.09.1994 by the amending the building fetching a rent of Rs. 2,000/- or more has been exempted from the operation of the Act. The Apex Court in Mahendra Pal Agarwal Vs. The aforesaid amendment has been inserted by U.P. Act No. 5 of 1995 w.e.f. 26.09.1994 by the amending the building fetching a rent of Rs. 2,000/- or more has been exempted from the operation of the Act. The Apex Court in Mahendra Pal Agarwal Vs. Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge and others 2000(2) ARC Page 296 has held as under : “While the aforesaid writ petition was pending, U.P. Amendment Act 5/95 came into force whereby the premises which were fetching rent above Rs. 2,000 were exempted from the provisions of the Act.” 25. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any illegality while recording the finding on the basis of the assumption that Act No. 13 of 1972 being not applicable to the building in dispute, the plaintiff is entitled for eviction of the defendant from the premises in dispute. 26. So far as the mesne profit to the extent of Rs. 300/- per day is concerned, in Marshall Sons and Company (I) Ltd. Vs. Sahi Oretrans (P) Ltd. And another 1999(2) SCC page 325, the Apex Court has observed that the landlord is entitled to recover the mesne profit/compensation at the market rate. Relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is quoted below : “6. Having considered the relevant submissions of the parties including the submissions with regard to market rent. (2) The respondents are directed to pay the mesne profits/compensation at the rate of Rs. 10 per sq. ft. from 1984 till today and the rate of Rs. 20 from today till the disposal of the suit. While making this payment, the payments already made shall be adjusted. So far as the arrears are concerned, they be paid in 12 equal monthly instalments.” 27. Similar view has been taken in Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. Federal Motors (P) Ltd. (2005) 1 SCC 705 after relying upon various judgments to the following effect : “13. In Shyam Charan v. Sheoji Bhai (1977) 4 SCC 393, this Court has upheld the principle that the tenant continuing in occupation of the tenancy premises after the termination of tenancy is an unauthorized and wrongful occupant and a decree for damages or mesne profits can be passed for the period of such occupation, till the date he delivers the vacant possession to the landlord. .........After determination of the tenancy, the position of the tenant is akin to that of a trespasser and he cannot claim that the measure of damages awardable to the landlord should be kept tagged to the rate of rent payable under the provisions of the Rent Control Order. If the real value of the property is higher than the rent earned then the amount of compensation for continued use and occupation of the property by the tenant can be assessed at the higher value. 28. Relying upon the judgment of Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. V. Federal Motors (P) Ltd. JT 2004(1) SC 410: 2005(1) SCC 705 : 2005 SCFBRC 99 in Achal Mishra Vs. Ram Shankar Singh reported in 2005 (1) ARC Page 887 it has been observed as under :- “we make it clear that the respondents shall be liable to pay the rent equivalent to mesne profits with effect from the date with which they are found to have ceased to be entitled to retain possession of the premises as tenant for such period the landlord’s entitlement cannot be held pegged to the standard rent. Reference may be had to the law laid down by the Court in Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. V. Federal Motors (P) Ltd., JT 2004 (1) SC 410 : 2005 (10) SCC 705 : 2005 SCFBRC 99.” 29. Scope of interference under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act has been interpreted by the Apex Court from time to time. It is not an appellate jurisdiction and therefore, the findings of fact cannot be interfered. 30. 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. 30. 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.” 31. In Shyam Lal Vs. Rasool Ahmad (Dead) by L.Rs. 2002 SCFBRC 479, the Apex Court has observed as under : “5. Lastly, it was submitted that the District Court exercising revisional jurisdiction did not have jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the trial Court. This submission is also liable to be rejected. Firstly, it was a revision preferred under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, the jurisdiction whereunder is not so limited as it may be under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Secondly, as we have already pointed out the learned District Judge had assigned convincing reasons for arriving at a finding different from the one arrived at by the trial Court and on the material available on record the District Judge though exercising revisional jurisdiction was fully justified in interfering with findings of fact arrived at by the trial Court which overlooked the weighty relevant material available on record and clinching the issue.” 32. In view of the aforesaid, the building fetching the rent of more than Rs. 2,000/- being not covered under the Rent Act, the defendant being defaulter, and a huge amount being in arrears, no interference under the revisional jurisdiction can be made. In view of the aforesaid, the building fetching the rent of more than Rs. 2,000/- being not covered under the Rent Act, the defendant being defaulter, and a huge amount being in arrears, no interference under the revisional jurisdiction can be made. It is evident that the more than Rs. 2,00,000/- is outstanding against the defendant and it does not appear that the said amount has been deposited in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court on 22.12.2006. 33. In view of the above, I find no merit in the revision. Consequently, revision is dismissed along with all other pending applications. No order as to costs.