JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.C. Srivastava for respondent no.1 and Sri Bakhteyar Yusuf for respondent no.2. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the decree for recovery of arrears of rent and for ejectment dated 7.12.2013 passed against him by the Judge Small Causes Court, Meerut in SCC suit no. 100 of 2010 and the judgement dated 12.5.2015 passed by the District Judge, Meerut, dismissing SCC revision no.1 of 2014. 3. The SCC suit no. 100 of 2010 was instituted by the first respondent before the Judge Small Causes, Meerut against the petitioner for recovery of arrears of rent and for ejectment from the premises in possession of the petitioner as tenant. According to the plaint case, the demised premises is a waqf property and consequently provisions of U.P. Act no.13 of 19721 were not applicable to it. It was further alleged that the rent of demised premises was Rs.500/- per month and since 1 January 2009, the petitioner had defaulted in payment of rent. His tenancy was allegedly terminated by a notice dated 22.10.2010. However, the petitioner failed to vacate the demised premises and hence the suit. 4. The suit was contested by the petitioner by filing a written statement in which he admitted that the demised premises is a waqf property. However, his categorical plea in the written statement was that the rent of demised premises was initially Rs.15/- per month and was later on enhanced to Rs.30/- per month. He also took a specific plea that he had paid rent till March 2012 to the erstwhile mutwalli. 5. The trial court framed several issues for determination. On point no.1 regarding applicability of the U.P. Act no.13 of 1972, it is held that the demised premises belongs to a waqf and therefore, it is exempt from the provision of the Act. Point no.2 was regarding the rate of rent and it has been decided in favour of the petitioner /tenant. Point no.3 is regarding the period since when the petitioner is in default in payment of rent. While deciding the said issue, the Judge Small Causes disbelieved the rent receipts paper no.49 Ga and 50 Ga filed by the petitioner to prove payment of rent from 1 January 2009 onwards. It is further held that no rent receipt was filed relating to the period 1.1.2009 to November 2009. While deciding the said issue, the Judge Small Causes disbelieved the rent receipts paper no.49 Ga and 50 Ga filed by the petitioner to prove payment of rent from 1 January 2009 onwards. It is further held that no rent receipt was filed relating to the period 1.1.2009 to November 2009. The Judge Small Causes accordingly held that the petitioner is in default in payment of rent since January 2009. 6. On point no.4 regarding validity of notice, it is held that the same had been duly served on the petitioner by refusal and it validly terminated his tenancy. The Judge Small Causes, after recording the aforesaid finding, decreed the suit for arrears of rent from 1 January 2009 until 24.11.2009 at the rate of Rs.30/- per month and awarded damages/ mesne profits from 25.11.2009 onwards @ Rs.150/- per month. The suit for ejectment is also decreed. The judgement has been affirmed by the revisional court. 7. The only submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner before this court is that in the suit, the plaintiff/ respondent had claimed rent at the rate of Rs.500/- per month but in the notice, terminating the tenancy, it was admitted that the rate of rent was Rs.30/- per month. It is thus, submitted that the same will invalidate the notice and all consequential proceedings. 8. The findings of the Judge Small Causes Court regarding non-applicability of the Act to demised premises is not under challenge. The suit is not founded on the ground of default in payment of rent as contemplated by section 20(2)(a) of the U. P. Act no. 13 of 1972. It is rather based on the notice given under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 determining the tenancy, as contemplated under Section III (b). In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that even if the plaintiff/landlord in the suit had alleged that the rate of rent of the demised premises was Rs.500/- per month and which was ultimately found to be incorrect, the same would not invalidate the notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 nor the consequential proceedings. 9. 9. In the end, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that although the Judge Small Causes recorded a categorical finding that the rent of the demised premises was Rs.30/- per month, but without there being any discussions in the operative part of the judgement, the suit for recovery of damages and mesne profit has been decreed at the rate of Rs.150/- per month. In this regard, I find substantial force in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. The court, if it chooses to award damages/ mesne profits at a rate higher than the rate of rent, there should have been some finding in that regard. 10. In view of the discussion made above, the decree passed by the courts below for recovery of arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.30/- per month and for ejectment is upheld, while setting aside the decree for payment of damages/mesne profit at the rate of Rs.150/- per month. In substitution thereof, it is hereby provided that the petitioner shall be liable to pay damages/mesne profit at the rate of rent determined by the trial court i.e., Rs.30/- per month. In all other respect, the decree passed by the trial court is affirmed. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed in part.