Sudhir Kumar Saxena, J.— This revision filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 ('Act' in short) is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.4.2010 passed by Sri Laxmi Kant Shukla, Additional District Judge, Court No.4, Faizabad decreeing the SCC Suit No. 3 of 2008 with costs directing the eviction of defendant payment of decretal amount along with damages @ Rs. 100/- per day with interest @ 6% per annum . Briefly stated facts are that SCC Suit No. 3 of 2008 was filed by Ratnesh Jaiswal and another against Rama Shanker Singh seeking relief for ejectment and arrears of rent alleging that they were owner and landlord of House No. E-73, Neel Vihar Colony, Mohalla Ram Nagar, City Faizabad which they purchased from its original allottee. Allotment was made by Ayodhya-Faizabad Development Authority. Defendant Rama Shanker Singh was tenant of first and second floor of the building at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per month since March, 2005. Tenancy commenced from first of each month. Tenant was liable to pay electricity and water charges as well. Tenant paid rent from March, 2005 till May, 2006 but has not paid rent from June, 2006 to February, 2008, as such he was in arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 42,000/-. A demand notice was sent. Tenant on persistence of the landlord issued a cheque of Rs. 20,000/- which was, however, dishonoured because signature of defendant did not tally and sufficient funds were not available in the accounts. Despite repeated demands, rent was not paid, consequently plaintiffs sent notice on 17.3.2008 under Section 106 of T.P.Act determining the tenancy and claiming the arrears of rent. Aforesaid notice was received by the tenant on 22.3.2008. In reply to the notice, defendant admitted the factum of tenancy as well as relationship of landlord and tenant but denied that anything was due upon him. Since he did not vacate the house, suit was filed for ejectment and decree of Rs. 42,000/- as arrears of rent, Rs. 4000/- towards rent of March and April, 2008 and Rs. 100/- per day as damanges for use and occupation. Defendant Rama Shanker Singh filed written-statement and stated that erstwhile owner of the building was Babu Ram Yadav from whom plaintiffs had taken the house and representing themselves to be landlord let out the house to the defendant at the rate of Rs. 100/- per day as damanges for use and occupation. Defendant Rama Shanker Singh filed written-statement and stated that erstwhile owner of the building was Babu Ram Yadav from whom plaintiffs had taken the house and representing themselves to be landlord let out the house to the defendant at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per month. No rent-note was executed. Rs. 70,000/- was deposited as security money, as such he had paid a sum of Rs. 96,000/- adjusting the rent up to the month of February, 2008. On 5.3.2008, he handed over the possession of ground floor to the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs got a cheque of Rs. 20,000/- from the wife of defenant. Notice has been given on false ground. Electricity connection was disconnected in April, 2008 and suit is liable to be dismissed with special costs etc. It further appears that on an application of plaintiffs moved on 4.4.2009 after inviting objection from defendant, trial court exercised power under Order XV Rule 5 CPC to strike off the defence vide order dated 29.7.2009. It further appears that Ratnesh Jaiswal and Vinoj Kumar Jaiswal were produced as P.W.1 and P.W.2. Trial court framed three points for determination- first being whether plaintiffs had let out first and second floor of the house to the defendant at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month in addition to water and electricity charges (2) whether defendant has not paid rent from June, 2006 to February, 2008 and (3) whether notice given under Section 106 of T.P.Act is valid ? After considering the evidence on record, trial court came to the conclusion that notice was valid. First and second floor of building was let out to the defendant and defendant failed to pay the rent from June, 2006 to April, 2008. On these findings, suit was decreed on 23.4.2010. This very decree has been challenged in the instant revision. During pendency of the revision, memo of revision was sought to be amended and amendment was permitted by this Court vide order dated 4.3.2013. By way of amendment, revisionist has prayed for recalling the order dated 29.7.2009 whereby defence was struck off. It was also prayed that plaint be returned for being presented before the competent civil court. During pendency of the revision, memo of revision was sought to be amended and amendment was permitted by this Court vide order dated 4.3.2013. By way of amendment, revisionist has prayed for recalling the order dated 29.7.2009 whereby defence was struck off. It was also prayed that plaint be returned for being presented before the competent civil court. Grounds added in the memo of revision were to the effect that demand notice was invalid and suit was not cognizable by Small Cause Court and order striking off the defence is beyond Order XV Rule 5 CPC. Before adverting to the submissions made by learned counsel, it may be useful to consider the provisions of Order XV Rule 5 CPC. It has been held by the trial court that even if adjustment of amount allegedly paid in advance is made, defendant has failed to pay the rent month to month as contemplated under Order XV Rule 5 CPC attracting rigors thereof. Even in this Court it is nowhere pleaded that month to month rent was deposited by the defendant. Order XV Rule 5 CPC provides not only admitted rent is to be paid but rent has to be paid every month. In this view of the matter, there being no pleading or proof to the effect that monthly rent was paid, I find no error in the order dated 29.7.2009 whereby the defence was struck off. Moreover, on an application filed by defendant to recall the order dated 29.7.2009, trial court passed order again on 12.10.2009, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure CA-5 to the counter-affidavit. This time the defendant has alleged that he has been tenant of the plaintiffs since March, 2008 at the rate of Rs. 9,000/- per year. Court observed that monthly rent of building was Rs. 2000/- of two floors and the building was let out to the defendant, receipts filed by defendant pertain to House No. E-74, while suit was filed for eviction from House No. E-73. Disbelieving the evidence, trial court rejected the application to recall the order dated 29.7.2009. I have heard Sri A.S.Gaur, learned counsel for revisionist and Sri S.K.Mehrotra for opposite-parties. It is submitted by Sri A.S.Gaur that it was a suit for ejectment of the house which is not cognizable under Provincial Small Cause Courts' Act, consequently, the impugned decree is a nullity. I have heard Sri A.S.Gaur, learned counsel for revisionist and Sri S.K.Mehrotra for opposite-parties. It is submitted by Sri A.S.Gaur that it was a suit for ejectment of the house which is not cognizable under Provincial Small Cause Courts' Act, consequently, the impugned decree is a nullity. He has placed reliance on the Second Schedule of Section 15 of the Act. Section 15 of the Act provide that Small Cause Court shall not take cognizance of suit specified in the second schedule as suits excepted from the cognizance of the Small Cause Courts Act. Clause 4 of the Second Schedule to the Act is reproduced below:- "(4) a suit for the possession of immoveable property or for the recovery of an interest in such property". However, there is an amendment of clause 4 for Uttar Pradesh, as such following clause (4) shall be applicable:- "(4) a suit for the possession of immoveable property or for the recovery of an interest in such property, but not including a suit by a lessor for the eviction of a lessee from a building after the determination of his lease, and for the recovery from him of compensation for the use and occupation of that building after such determination of lease." From the above, it is apparent that suit leading to the instant revision was maintainable before the Small Cause Court as it was a suit by lessor for the eviction of a lessee from the building after determining the lease. Next submission of learned counsel is that notice was invalid. He has relied on a decision of the Patna High Court reported in AIR 1978 Patna 292 (Rajendra Mohan Ghosh v. Smt. Kaushalla Devi). The relevant observation made in para 9 of the judgment is being quoted herein below:- "There can be no dispute on the proposition that under S. 106 of the T.P.Act, the notice to quit served on the tenant must expire with the end of the month of the tenancy. If the tenancy is terminated with effect from an earlier date, it would be clearly invalid. No authority is needed on this point, because the language of the section is itself clear and unambiguous. If the tenancy is terminated with effect from an earlier date, it would be clearly invalid. No authority is needed on this point, because the language of the section is itself clear and unambiguous. If, however, any authority is needed, the discussion at Para No.4 in the case of Bhagaban Das v. Bhagwandas Kanu ( AIR 1977 SC 1120 ) may be seen." Patna High Court has taken the view that tenancy cannot be terminated from an earlier date. It should terminate at the end of the month. Perusal of the notice would show that tenancy has been terminated after expiry of 30 days. Para 4 of the notice is being quoted below:- @ Hindi @ As such this decision does not help to the revisionist. Learned counsel has also cited a decision of this Bench given in Mehtab Chand Agarwal v. Addl. District Judge, Lucknow and others reported in 1983 ACJ, p. 445. In para 5 of this judgment, there is specific finding that a suit for the eviction of a tenant from a building in his occupation and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation is cognizable by a Small Cause Court in view of the amendments introduced in Article 4.However, this amendment dose not cover the suit for recovery of compensation for the damage caused to the building by tenant. This case is absolutely distinguishable from the present case as possession has been claimed by the landlord. Next submission of learned counsel is that trial court has not framed issues. He has cited a decision of this Court reported in 2011 (114) R.D., 4471, Akhil Kumar Jain v. Smt. Sharda Devi and others. In para 5 of the judgment, it is mentioned that "points for determination" are nothing but the issues contemplated by Rules 1 and 3 of Order XIV Before the Court, the case arose from the order of Judge, Small Causes Court. In the said case, the trial court had rejected the application for framing issues. In para 5 of the judgment, it is mentioned that "points for determination" are nothing but the issues contemplated by Rules 1 and 3 of Order XIV Before the Court, the case arose from the order of Judge, Small Causes Court. In the said case, the trial court had rejected the application for framing issues. In the present case, it is found that three points for determination have been framed which are virtually issues as contemplated by Apex Court in the case of Rameshvar Dayal v. Banda (dead) through his legal representatives and another reported in 1993 (21) ALR, p. 233 (SC), Apex Court has come to the conclusion that Small Causes Court has not even stated the point of determination clearly. This case is of no help. Another decision reported in 1980 ALJ 695, Banaras Education Society, Varanasi v. 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Varanasi and others has been cited which is an authority for proposition that order striking off defence can be challenged along with final decree. This Court has examined the validity of order striking off the defence in the preceding paragraph. Trial court has exercised its discretion conferred under Order XV Rule 5 CPC because monthly deposit was not made. Rule 5 specifically says that he will deposit the entire amount admitted by him together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Here, the defendant can claim adjustment and can say nothing is due. But in the second part of provision he is duty bound to regularly deposit the amount due every month from the date of its accrual whether he admits or does not admit any amount to be due. Defendant in his written-statement has admitted that he was tenant at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month. He has admitted in the notice that he was tenant at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month. In these circumstances, he was supposed to deposit Rs. 2,000/- per month throughout till decision of the suit but he did not do so, as such there is no error in order striking off defence. Learned counsel for landlord also submitted that cheque allegedly issued by defendant was dishonoured by bank. Learned counsel filed a copy of complaint filed under Section 138 N.I.Act wherein tenant was convicted but acquitted in appeal. Against appellate order, revision is pending in this Court. Learned counsel for landlord also submitted that cheque allegedly issued by defendant was dishonoured by bank. Learned counsel filed a copy of complaint filed under Section 138 N.I.Act wherein tenant was convicted but acquitted in appeal. Against appellate order, revision is pending in this Court. Since controversy of cheque is irrelevant for the purpose of case, no further comment is needed. Learned counsel lastly submitted that admission made in the notice or in the written-statement cannot be used against him. For this proposition, he relied on a decision of Oudh High Court reported in (28) AIR 1941, p. 429, Mt. Munia v. Manohar Lal and others. It is not clear as to how this decision helps him. Court while referring to Section 116 of the Evidence Act goes on to say that ground of estoppel against the defendant can be used only during continuance of tenancy. There is no question of estoppel involved in this case. Defendant himself has admitted that he was tenant of the building at the rate of Rs. 2,000/-. This admission is culled out from the notice as well as written-statement. Moreover, the defendant himself in the suit filed against the landlord admitted this position. Copy of the plaint has been annexed as Annexure CA-7 to the counter-affidavit. Original Suit No. 107 of 2008 was filed by Rama Shanker Singh tenant against Ratnesh Jaiswal and Raghvendra Jaiswal. In para 4 of the plaint, it was admitted that he was tenant of the first and second floor of the house at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month including taxes and he paid the rent up to the month of May, 2006. Relief claimed was injunction restraining landlord from evicting him without adopting course in accordance with law. It has been rightly concluded by the trial court that defendant was tenant at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month and premises consisted of first and second floor of House No. E-73. Since defendant has failed to pay rent and vacate the house despite the valid notice served upon him, trial court has rightly decreed the suit. It cannot be said that decree is not in accordance with law. Revision is dismissed with costs. _____________