ORDER Present petition is filed assailing the judgment and order dated 30.10.2006 passed by learned District Judge, Haridwar in SCC Revision No. 28 of 2004 whereby Revisional Court was pleased to allow the revision filed by tenant respondent, herein and was further pleased to dismiss the suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent. 2. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that petitioner namely Swami Beli Ram Udasin Ashram, Kankhal, is a registered society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, of which petitioner No. 2 Mahant Somdas is the Manager; respondent was inducted in the property - shop, in question, as tenant at the rent of Rs. 12.50 per month; plaintiffs/landlord petitioners, herein, issued one notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as T.P. Act) to the tenant respondent, herein, on 03.02.1998 vide registered letter AD informing the tenant that their tenancy would stand determined/terminated, on expiry of 30 days from the date of receipt of notice and calling the tenant respondent, herein, to vacate the property and hand over the peaceful, vacant possession of the property to the landlord plaintiffs petitioners, herein, after expiry of 30 days from the date of receipt of notice; further calling the tenants to pay arrears of rent to the plaintiffs with effect from 01.07.1997 to 31.01.1998. 3. Undisputedly, notice under Section 106 of the T.P. Act was received by the tenant - respondent on 06.02.1998, however, defendant tenant failed to hand over the peaceful vacant possession of the property, in question, to the plaintiffs landlord, after expiry of 30 days from the date of receipt of notice and further failed to pay arrears of rent, as demanded by the landlord, therefore, plaintiffs were compelled to file SCC Suit No. 23 of 1998 in the court of JSCC Civil Judge (JD), Haridwar. In the written statement, defendants respondent herein, did not deny the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The only plea taken by the defendants in the written statement was that rent receipts were being issued in favour of M/s Hukam Chand Surendra Kumar a partnership firm, therefore, firm was tenant and firm had not been impleaded as party in the suit, therefore, suit for eviction against the defendants was not maintainable. The only plea taken by the defendants in the written statement was that rent receipts were being issued in favour of M/s Hukam Chand Surendra Kumar a partnership firm, therefore, firm was tenant and firm had not been impleaded as party in the suit, therefore, suit for eviction against the defendants was not maintainable. It was further stated in the written statement that although, plaintiff No. 1 is a registered Society, however, Society is not doing any religious or charitable work, therefore, could not be said to be a religious or charitable society. 4. Learned trial court vide judgment and decree dated 29.11.2004 was pleased to decree the suit filed by the landlord plaintiffs petitioners, herein, directing the tenant defendants respondent, herein, to handover the peaceful, vacant possession of the property, in question, to the landlord plaintiffs petitioners within 30 days from the date of judgment. Feeling aggrieved, defendants respondent, herein, preferred SCC Revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act before District Judge, Haridwar being SCC Revision No.28 of 2004, which was allowed by the Revisional Court vide judgment dated 30.10.2006. Feeling aggrieved, landlord petitioners, herein, have approached this Court by way of filing present petition. 5. I have heard Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Rishik Lakhera and Mr. Pratool Kumar, Advocates for the petitioner and Mr. Siddharath Sah, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 and have carefully perused the record. 6. Tenant respondent, herein, does not dispute that petitioner No. 1 is a society, registered under the provisions of Societies Registration Act. 7. Rajendra Dobhal, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Rishik Lakhera and Mr. Pratool Kumar, Advocates for the petitioner and Mr. Siddharath Sah, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 and have carefully perused the record. 6. Tenant respondent, herein, does not dispute that petitioner No. 1 is a society, registered under the provisions of Societies Registration Act. 7. Section 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'U.P. Rent Act') reads as under: ' Section 2- Exemptions from operation of Act: (1) Nothing in this Act shall apply to [the following namely]: (a) any building of which the Government or a local authority or a public sector corporation, [or a Cantonment Board] is the landlord; or (b) any building belonging to or vested in a recognised educational institution; or (bb) any building belonging to or vested in a public charitable or public religious institution; (bbb) any building belonging to or vested in a waqf including a waqf-alal-aulad; (c) any building used or intended to be used as a factory within the meaning of the Factories Act, 1948 (Act No. LXIII of 1948), [where the plant of such factory is leased out along with the building]; or (d) any building used or intended to be used for any other industrial purpose (that is to say, for the purpose of manufacture, preservation or processing of any goods) or as a cinema or theatre, where the plant and apparatus installed for such purpose in the building is leased out along with the building: Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply in relation to any shop or other building, situated within the precincts of the cinema or theatre, the tenancy in respect of which has been created separately from the tenancy in respect of the cinema or theatre; or (e) any building used or intended to be used as a place of public entertainment or amusement (including any sports stadium, but not including a cinema or theatre), or any building appurtenant thereto; or (f) any building built and held by a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (Act No. XXI of 1860) or by a co-operative society, company or firm, and intended solely for its own occupation or for the occupation of any of its officers or servants, whether on rent or free of rent, or as a guest house, by whatever name called, for the occupation of persons having dealing with it in ordinary course of business; (g) any building, whose monthly rent exceeds two thousand rupees; (h) any building of which a Mission of a foreign country or any international agency is the tenant. (2) Except as provided in sub-section (5) of Section 12, sub-section (1-A) of Section 21, sub-section (2) of Section 24, Sections 24-A, 24-B, 24-C or sub-section (3) of Section 29, nothing in this Act shall apply to a building during a period of ten years from the date on which its construction is completed]: Provided that where any building is constructed substantially out of funds obtained by way of loan or advance from the State Government or the Life Insurance Corporation of India or a bank or a co-operative society or the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, and the period of repayment of such loan or advance exceeds the aforesaid period of ten years, then the reference in this sub-section to the period of ten years shall be deemed to be a reference to the period of fifteen years or the period ending with the date of actual repayment of such loan or advance (including interest), whichever is shorter]; Provided further that where construction of a building is completed on or after April 26, 1985 then the reference in this sub-section to the period of ten years shall be deemed to be a reference to a period of [forty years] from the date on which its construction is completed.] Explanation I.: - [For the purposes of this section]: (a) the construction of a building shall be deemed to have been completed on the date on which the completion thereof is reported to or otherwise recorded by the local authority having jurisdiction, and in the case of building subject to assessment, the date on which the first assessment thereof comes into effect, and where the said dates are different, the earliest of the said dates, and in the absence of any such report, record or assessment, the date on which it is actually occupied (not including occupation merely for the purposes of supervising the construction or guarding the building under construction) for the first time: Provided that there may be different dates of completion of construction in respect of different parts of a building which are either designed as separate units or are occupied separately by the landlord and one or more tenants or by different tenants: (b) 'construction' includes any new construction in place on an existing building which has been wholly or substantially demolished; (c) where such substantial addition is made to an existing building that the existing building becomes only a minor part thereof the whole of the building including the existing building shall be deemed to be constructed on the date of completion of the said addition. Explanation II. The expression 'bank' means: (i) a banking company, as defined in the Banking Regulation Act, 1949; (ii) the State Bank of India constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955; (iii) a subsidiary bank, as defined in the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959; (iv) a corresponding new bank constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970; (v) a financing bank or Central Bank (as defined in the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1965), not being a Land Development Bank; and (vi) any other financial institution notified by the State Government in the Gazette as a bank for the purpose of this Act. Explanation III. - A building shall be deemed to be constructed substantially out of funds obtained from sources mentioned in the proviso, and if the funds obtained from one or more of such sources, account for more than one-half of the cost of construction.] (3) [* * *] 8. As per sub-section (f) of Section 2 of the U.P. Rent Act any building built and held by a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 shall not be covered by the provisions of the U.P. Rent Act. 9. Since provisions of the U.P. Rent Act are not applicable in the present case, as also rightly held by the learned trial court, therefore, tenancy of the defendants respondent was at will. Moreover, tenant/respondent, herein, does not dispute month to month tenancy and monthly tenancy is always at will unless agreed otherwise by lease deed in writing. 10. Undisputedly, tenancy at will can be determined / terminated by issuing notice under Section 106 of the T. P. Act. In the present case, notice under Section 106 of the T. P. Act was sent to the defendants respondent by registered post AD on 04.02.1998, which was served on the defendants tenant on 06.02.1998 whereupon defendants were informed that their tenancy would stand terminated/determined on expiry of 30 days from the date of service of notice, therefore, tenancy of the defendants stood terminated on expiry of 30 days from the date of service of notice i.e. 06.02.1998. 11. Undisputedly, Hukam Chand and Surendra Kumar, both defendants, are father and son and are running business in the shop, in question, in the name and style of M/s Hukam Chand Surendra Kumar. 11. Undisputedly, Hukam Chand and Surendra Kumar, both defendants, are father and son and are running business in the shop, in question, in the name and style of M/s Hukam Chand Surendra Kumar. Even if, it is presumed that M/s Hukum Chand Surendra Kumar is a partnership firm, fact remains that there are only two partners of the firm i.e. defendants, therefore, if both the partners are impleaded in the suit, suit cannot be said to be not maintainable for want of impleadment of partnership firm. 12. Observations of the Revisional Court that relationship of landlord and tenant is not proved, on the face of it, is wrong and incorrect and against the record. Tenants themselves are not denying the relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties. In paragraph 1 of the plaint, it is stated by the plaintiffs that defendants are in possession of tenanted portion on behalf of the plaintiffs landlord and non denial of the pleadings of paragraph 1 of the plaint would amount to admission of the pleading, in view of Order 8, Rule 5, CPC. 13. Since, landlord tenant relationship between the parties is not in dispute and tenancy was at will, which was rightly determined/terminated by issuing notice under Section 106 of the T.P. Act, therefore, judgment passed by the learned trial court is perfectly valid, which was wrongly disturbed by the Revisional Court, that too on the grounds which are beyond the pleadings. Consequently, petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Judgment and order passed by the Revisional Court is hereby set aside. Judgment and decree passed by the trial court is hereby restored. 14. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I direct that defendants/respondent, herein, shall handover the vacant peaceful possession of the property, in question, to the landlord petitioners, herein, on or before 30.06.2015. If tenants defendants' respondent, herein, fail to handover the possession of the property, in question, till 30.06.2015, they shall also pay mesne profit @ Rs. 100/- per day to the landlord petitioners, herein, from 07.03.1998 till the actual possession is handed over to the petitioners after adjusting the amount, if any, already deposited or paid to the plaintiffs petitioners. 15. Respondent No.2 shall also pay cost of litigation, which is assessed to be Rs.10,000/-. Petition allowed.