JUDGMENT Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J. This revision petition under Section 25 of the Small Causes Court Act has been preferred challenging the judgment and order dated 01.04.2013, passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court/Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Faizabad whereby the suit for eviction and damages filed by the sole opposite party has been decreed. 2. A suit by the plaintiff (opposite party herein) was filed against the defendant (revision-applicant herein) for eviction and damages with the plaint allegation that plaintiff is the owner of House No. 19, situate at Lajpat Nagar, Faizabad. The defendant is a body corporate, whose regional office is at Faizabad and is managed by its Regional Manager. That the defendant took the premises in question on monthly rent of Rs. 7,250/- for running its office in the year 1997. That there was an agreement of rent between the revision-applicant and the opposite party, accordingly to which the tenancy of the premises in question was for one year and if the term of the tenancy was to be extended, then the defendant was required to enhance the rent by 10%. It was further alleged in the plaint that defendants enhanced the rent in the year 1999 to Rs. 7,975/- and since then they have been paying the rent. However, defendants have been infringing the terms of the agreement and despite asking repeatedly, neither rent was enhanced nor any new lease agreement was executed. It was further alleged by the plaintiff that on 03.01.2008 and 04.06.2008 he gave a notice for enhancing the rent. However, despite receipt of the notice, the defendants did not enhance the rent and hence infringed the terms of the agreement and accordingly, he, by giving a written notice dated 19.05.2009 terminated the tenancy and required the defendants to vacate the premises. It has also been alleged in the plaint that the defendants had made certain alterations in the premises and garage was not used as garage; rather it was used for running generator set which had resulted in cracks in the wall. 3. The plaint allegations were denied by the defendants by filing written statement stating therein that on the basis of the letter dated 17.01.1997 of the plaintiff, the monthly rent agreed upon was Rs. 3. The plaint allegations were denied by the defendants by filing written statement stating therein that on the basis of the letter dated 17.01.1997 of the plaintiff, the monthly rent agreed upon was Rs. 7,250/- in respect of the premises No. 19, situate at Mohalla Lajpat Nagar, Faizabad and an agreement was also executed between the parties for a period of one year, according to which, after expiry of the period of one year, the rent was to be enhanced by 10% in case of continuance of the tenancy. It was further stated in the written statement that after expiry of the period of one year, as per terms agreed upon between the parties, the rent was enhanced by 10% and the defendants started paying Rs. 7,975/- per month as rent w.e.f. 22.01.1998. The defendants further stated in the written statement that another agreement was entered into between the parties on 16.12.1999 for continuance of the tenancy and the second agreement does not contain any term or condition for enhancement of the rent. 4. The suit was contested by the parties and the learned trial court after examining the materials on record came to the conclusion that the tenancy stood terminated and the defendants were trespassers in the premises in question. While arriving at the aforesaid conclusion, learned trial court has relied upon the statements of the witnesses and other evidence and has given a finding that the premises in question was given on rent to the defendants in the year 1997 for a period of one year with the condition that after expiry of the period of one year, the rent shall be enhanced by 10%. Learned trial court has also considered the agreement entered into between the parties in the year 1999. Learned trial court has further taken into account the notice dated 19.05.2009 given under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act by the plaintiff and has held that the tenancy has rightly been terminated and after termination of tenancy, the defendants are in illegal occupation. 5. It is noteworthy that the finding that the tenancy is to be terminated given by the learned trial court is based on the agreement entered into between the parties in the year 1999 which was for the fixed period of one year. 5. It is noteworthy that the finding that the tenancy is to be terminated given by the learned trial court is based on the agreement entered into between the parties in the year 1999 which was for the fixed period of one year. The said finding is also based on the fact that there is no material on record that after expiry of the lease term of one year as per the agreement executed in the year 1999, no other agreement between the parties was entered into and hence, after expiry of the said period of one year tenancy will be deemed to be a tenancy of holding over on month to month basis. 6. The contention of the defendants to the effect that since even after expiry of the period of agreement, the plaintiff kept on receiving the rent, hence defendants were not liable to be evicted, has also been considered by the learned trial court and it has been found that if the suit for eviction has been filed within the limitation then merely because landlord has received rent even after terminating the tenancy, the same will not amount to waiver of the notice and since in the instant case, the suit was filed within a year from the date of expiry of the notice, hence merely because rent was received by the landlord, it will not amount to waiver of the notice. The finding given by the learned trial court is based on evidence available on record. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the revision-applicant (defendant before the trial court) has attempted to raise a dispute regarding identity of the premises in question on the ground that the premises is not appropriately described either in the agreement dated 21.01.1997 or in the subsequent agreement dated 16.12.1999. At this juncture, it is noticeable that regarding the identity of the premises, the objection is being taken by the revision-applicant for the first time in these proceedings before this Court and said issue was never raised before the learned trial court. The notice given by the plaintiff clearly mentions the House No. 19, situate at Mohalla Lajpat Nagar, Faizabad. In para-1 of the plaint also the premises in question has been described as House No. 19, situate in Mohalla Lajpat Nagar, Faizabad. The notice given by the plaintiff clearly mentions the House No. 19, situate at Mohalla Lajpat Nagar, Faizabad. In para-1 of the plaint also the premises in question has been described as House No. 19, situate in Mohalla Lajpat Nagar, Faizabad. The plaint allegation contained in para-1 of the plaint is that plaintiff was the owner of the said premises in question. The said assertion made in the plaint has not been denied by the defendants (revision-applicant) in the written statement filed before the learned trial court. No evidence even for the namesake has been produced by the revision-applicant before the learned trial court in this regard. 8. On careful consideration of the arguments made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on perusal of the record of the learned trial court, I am of the considered opinion that the judgment and order under challenge in this revision petition does not suffer from any illegality so as to call for any interference in these proceedings. 9. Accordingly, the revision-petition is hereby dismissed. 10. However, parties shall bear their own costs.