JUDGMENT Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. (Oral) This revision, preferred u/s 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act, 1887 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.9.2012/3.10.2012 passed by III Additional District Judge, Dehradun in SCC Case No.26 of 2007 Sri Digambar Jain Panchayati Mandir and Jain Bhawan vs. Bimla Bansal and others. 2. Brief facts of the case, giving rise to this revision are, that a SCC Suit No.26 of 2007 was filed by the respondent against the revisionists for realisation of rent and ejectment from the shop in question. The suit was contested by the revisionist-defendants by filing written statement. Both the parties adduced evidence before the Judge, S.C.C. In the suit, stand was taken by the plaintiff that it is a public religious and charitable institution therefore the provisions of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 are not applicable to the shop in question. The revisionist contended before the trial court that the plaintiff-respondent is not a public religious institution therefore exemption is not attracted. 3. The learned Additional District Judge framed as many as seven points for determination in the suit as follows:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is a Public Religious Charitable Institution and whether the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 are not applicable to the shop in question? 2. Whether the defendants/revisionist are in default of rent from 1.5.2006 to 22.12.2006 @ Rs.1500/- per month, and if so, its effect? 3. Whether the defendants have committed default in payment of rent? 4. Whether the court has no jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the suit? 5. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled for? 6. Whether the tenancy of the defendants was terminated vide notice dated 23.11.2006? If so, its effect. 7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages? 4. In support of his case, the plaintiff filed the affidavit of Sanjay Jain as oral evidence and in documentary evidence filed list 7-Ga, notice 23.11.2003, receipt of post office and other relevant documents. On the other hand, the revisionist-defendant examined Sanjay Bansal as D.W.1 and also filed some documents. 5. Learned A.D.J. heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence led by the parties. Issue no.1 was decided in favour of the plaintiff and it has been held that the provisions of U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972 are not applicable to the disputed shop. 5. Learned A.D.J. heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence led by the parties. Issue no.1 was decided in favour of the plaintiff and it has been held that the provisions of U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972 are not applicable to the disputed shop. On Point No. 2, 3 and 6 3 it has been held that the defendant-revisionist has not committed default in payment of rent and that tenancy has been terminated as per notice dated 23.11.2006. On Point No. 4, it has also been held that that the court has jurisdiction to hear the case. Ultimately, by the judgment and decree dated 30.9.2012, the learned 3rd Additional District Judge decreed the suit of the respondent-plaintiff. Aggrieved by the order of learned A.D.J., the revisionist-defendant has preferred this revision before the Court. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. By a perusal of evidence led before the Judge, S.C.C., it is clear that the revisionist has failed to prove the fact that the respondent-plaintiff is not a public religious charitable institution and no evidence was adduced by the revisionist that the plaintiff is not a public religious charitable institution. I have also gone through the judgment and I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and order. The learned Judge has rightly held in view of amended provision of section 2(b)(b), that the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 is not applicable. 8. For the reasons recorded above, the revision lacks merit and the same is dismissed. However, to do the complete justice and to meet the hardship of the revisionist, the revisionist-defendant is granted one year’s time from today to vacate the disputed shop provided the revisionist furnishes a written undertaking before the Judge, S.C.C. within a period of eight weeks from today to the effect that the revisionist shall vacate the disputed shop before the expiry of the said period of one year and shall deliver its vacant and peaceful possession to the respondent-plaintiff. It is further provided that the revisionist shall also pay the entire decretal amount to the respondent within a period of eight weeks and will also continue to pay the rent/damages, if any, by the 7th of each month. It is further provided that the revisionist shall also pay the entire decretal amount to the respondent within a period of eight weeks and will also continue to pay the rent/damages, if any, by the 7th of each month. In case of default, the plaintiff-respondent would be at liberty to get the shop in dispute vacated in accordance with law.