Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2434 (ALL)

Vasudev v. Sudeep Kumar Jain

2018-11-30

SANGEETA CHANDRA

body2018
JUDGMENT : SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. 1. This revision has been filed challenging the order dated 15.3.2018 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 12, Agra in SCC Suit No. 19 of 2012 by which the Suit of the landlord has been decreed. 2. The facts that are relevant for the decision of the controversy as mentioned in the stay application filed along with the SCC Revision and the judgment of the learned Trial Court are as follows:- 3. Sri Sudeep Kumar Jain filed SCC Suit No. 19 of 2012 alleging that the respondent no. 2 – Vasudev along with his two other brothers – Babu Lal and Raj Kumar, sons of Devan Das, is the tenant of a shop no. 29/296-A/32 Labh Chand Market, Raja Ki Mandi, Agra. The defendants run a footwear store by the name of New Meenu Chappal Store therein. The rent of the shop in question was earlier Rs. 330/-per month inclusive of tax, but was later on increased to Rs. 3125/-per month inclusive of tax. The defendants paid rent of the property only upto 31.3.2008 and w.e.f. 1.4.2008 till the date of filing of the Suit in April 2012, they had defaulted in paying of rent. 4. Initially, a notice dated 30.1.2012 terminating the tenancy and demanding arrears of rent and damages was sent through registered post on the residential as well as commercial address of the defendants. The defendants in collusion with the postman succeeded in getting the notices returned later on, on 17.2.2012, a notice was served upon the defendant through affixation on the shutter of the shop in Suit and getting the same photographed. 5. Despite service of notice, the defendants failed to vacate the property in Suit and to pay up arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 1,50,312/-which was due w.e.f. 1.4.2008. However, rent and taxes for earlier period was not being demanded as it was barred by three years limitation. Therefore, an amount of Rs. 1,12,500/-alone was claimed as arrears of rent and also Rs. 20,000/-per month as mesne profits for continued occupancy after determination of tenancy. Interest at the rate of 18% per annum was also claimed. However, rent and taxes for earlier period was not being demanded as it was barred by three years limitation. Therefore, an amount of Rs. 1,12,500/-alone was claimed as arrears of rent and also Rs. 20,000/-per month as mesne profits for continued occupancy after determination of tenancy. Interest at the rate of 18% per annum was also claimed. The claim was supported by the affidavit of Pradeep Kumar Jain son of Vinay Chandra Jain the brother of the landlord Sudeep Kumar and power of attorney holder, as the landlord Sudeep Kumar Jain was a Government servant and living elsewhere. 6. The defendants – Babu lal, Vasudev and Raj Kumar filed written statements and denied that the rent of the shop in question was Rs. 3125/-per month and insisted that the rent was only Rs. 330/-per month inclusive of Rs. 66/-as tax. It was also denied that rent was paid only upto 31.3.2008. It was alleged that till 30.11.2010, the deposit of rent and tax was done in the bank account of the plaintiff and pay-in-slips were given to the father of the plaintiff. 7. Later on, when rent was tendered through money order to the landlord, the same was refused and the defendants had to file Misc. Case No. 36 of 2011 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Agra under Section 30(1) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. They have been depositing rent at the rate of Rs. 330/-per month rent and taxes, in the said pending Suit upto 31.1.2013. 8. Oral statement was recorded of Vasudev -the tenant where he admitted that he alone was in tenancy of the shop as both his brothers were earlier doing business elsewhere and had later on died. In the oral statement, there was also an admission on the part of the tenant that although rent was being deposited along with taxes in the bank through pay-in-slips, no bank receipts of such deposits being made in favour of the landlord were in his possession. There was a denial that notice was ever served either through registered post or by affixation at the shop in question. 9. It was alleged that after filing of the Suit before the learned trial Court, an amount of Rs. 30,000/-had been deposited as rent w.e.f. 1.7.2012 upto 28.2.2013 in the learned trial Court as rent at the rate of Rs. 9. It was alleged that after filing of the Suit before the learned trial Court, an amount of Rs. 30,000/-had been deposited as rent w.e.f. 1.7.2012 upto 28.2.2013 in the learned trial Court as rent at the rate of Rs. 330/-per month along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 10. An additional written statement / affidavit was filed wherein copies of judgments in various Release Applications filed by the landlord against similarly situated tenants under the Rent Control Act, showing that the rent of the shops adjacent to the shop of the defendant were all less than Rs. 500/-per month, were filed. There was a specific allegation that the quinquennial assessment of 1987 to 1992 by Nagar Nigam had shown the property in Suit to be let out at the rate of Rs. 300/-per month to Devan Das the father of the defendants. Certain notices issued to the landlord by the Nagar Nigam with regard to the applications for renewal of lease of Nazul land on which LabhChand Market was situated were also filed and it was alleged that the receipts / documentary evidence filed by the landlord were forged and the Suit was not maintainable as the defendants were tenants of the shop in dispute for the past 40 years and the rent was never more than Rs. 2,000/-per month, hence, U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972 was applicable. 11. Sri Pradeep Kumar – the power of attorney holder of the landlord was examined and in his oral statement, he denied the contention of the defendants and also referred to original counterfoil of receipts issued to the tenant filed as Paper No. 28-Ga(1) as well as the pay-in-slips of deposits in cash of rent at the rate of Rs. 3125/-per month by the tenant in UTI Bank / Axis Bank filed as Paper Nos. 28-Ga(2) to 28-Ga(11). 12. Learned trial Court framed five issues. The first related to rate of rent. The second related to the applicability of the Act of 1972. The third related to validity of notice served under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The fourth related to whether benefit of Section 20(4) of the Rent Control Act could be given to the tenant to save his tenancy and the fifth related to whether any relief as prayed for by the landlord could be given in the Suit. 13. The fourth related to whether benefit of Section 20(4) of the Rent Control Act could be given to the tenant to save his tenancy and the fifth related to whether any relief as prayed for by the landlord could be given in the Suit. 13. With regard to issue no. 1, the learned trial Court referred to the written statement filed by the tenant and his allegation that Rs. 330/-per month alone was the rent payable for the shop in dispute, and the oral statement of D.W-1 Pradeep Kumar Jain and oral statement of D.W.-2 Vasudev. The documentary evidence was examined. The original rent receipts and original counterfoil of the amount deposited in bank of rent at the rate of Rs. 3135/-per month, was compared with the original rent receipts filed by the tenant upto the year 2002 as paper nos. 36-Ga(1) to 36-Ga(3). 14. The learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the tenant had not disputed the signatures on paper no. 28-Ga(1) or paper nos. 28-Ga(2) to 28-Ga(11). Since, the receipts were not disputed and no contradictory documentary evidence was produced by the tenant except for papers no. 36-Ga(1) to 36-Ga(3), which related to the period upto 30.3.2002, the learned trial Court concluded that the shop in dispute had been let out at the rate of Rs. 3125/-per month. Since, the rate of rent was Rs. 3125/-per month, the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was inapplicable. 15. With regard to service of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and its validity, the learned trial Court found from the original notice dated 31.1.2012 being produced before it with the endorsement of “not met” by the postman and the photographs of affixation of notice dated 17.2.2012 on the shutter of the shop in question to be sufficient service. It referred to judgments cited by the landlord, viz Madan & Company Vs. Wazir Jaivir Chand 1989 AIR SC 6 and P.T. Thomas Vs. Thomas Job 2005 (6) SCC 478 where the Supreme Court had observed that sending of notice by the landlord at the correct residential and commercial address of the tenant would be deemed as valid service of notice. It also refers to a judgment of this Court rendered in Rajendra Kumar Vs. Sanatan Dharm Inter College 2008 (17) ALR 61. 16. Thomas Job 2005 (6) SCC 478 where the Supreme Court had observed that sending of notice by the landlord at the correct residential and commercial address of the tenant would be deemed as valid service of notice. It also refers to a judgment of this Court rendered in Rajendra Kumar Vs. Sanatan Dharm Inter College 2008 (17) ALR 61. 16. The relevant extract of paragraphs 14 & 15 of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.T. Thomas (supra) are being quoted herein below:- “14.….....He had sent the notice on 3.10.2001 and it was 4.10.2001 well before the expiry of time on 5.10.2001. Though the notice was correctly addressed and despite the intimation by the post office, the notice was not accepted by the Respondent and was returned unserved. In such circumstances, the presumption of law is that the notice has been served on the Respondent. 15. The High Court, in our view, has also misinterpreted Section 27 of the Post Office Act. The requirement of Section has been complied with in this case. The reasoning of the High Court on this issue is not correct and not in accordance with factual position. In the notice issued, the Postman has made the endorsement. This presumption is correct in law. He had given notice and intimation. Nevertheless, the respondent did not receive the notice and it was returned unserved. Therefore, in our view, there is no obligation cast on the appellant to examine the Postman as assumed by the High Court. The presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act ….......” The learned Trial Court gave a finding regarding service of notice upon the tenant by the landlord under Section 106(4) of the Transfer of Property Act to be complete. 17. With regard to whether the tenant was entitled to be given the benefit of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, the case law cited by the tenant was considered, but it was held that such case law only applied where the property in question was not exempted under the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. In case, the Act itself was not applicable, then benefit of deposit under Section 30 could not be given nor the deposit made on the first date of hearing in the Suit under Section 20(4) could be given to the defendants. 18. After issue nos. In case, the Act itself was not applicable, then benefit of deposit under Section 30 could not be given nor the deposit made on the first date of hearing in the Suit under Section 20(4) could be given to the defendants. 18. After issue nos. 1 to 4 had been decided in favour of the plaintiff / landlord, the Suit was partly decreed by the learned trial Court in so far as mesne profits / damages for continued occupancy after determination of tenancy was fixed at the rate of Rs. 15,000/-per month only, taking into account the valuation report of the ADM (Finance and Revenue) Agra filed as paper nos. 31-Ga(1) to 31-Ga(5) relating to the property in dispute, as well as adjacent shops situated in the same market. 19. Sri Balwinder Singh Suri who appears on behalf of the revisionist has challenged the order passed by the learned trial Court in this revision mainly on the ground that the finding of the learned Trial Court regarding rate of rent of the shop in dispute is perverse. He has referred to paper no. 28-Ga(1) and disputed its genuineness on the ground that the certified copy of 28-Ga(1) when obtained from the learned trial Court, did not have anything written on the overleaf. In fact the back side of the original receipt no. 28-Ga(1) was pasted on a paper, and was therefore invisible to the eyes and the learned trial Court could not have referred to the calculation of rent / break up of rent deposited allegedly by the tenant to the tune of Rs. 1,39,985/-. He also disputed the calculation of rent as mentioned in paper no. 28-Ga(1) i.e. rent w.e.f. 1.4.2003 to 31.8.2004 at the rate of Rs. 330/-per month and rate of rent w.e.f. 1.9.2004 to 31.3.2008 being mentioned at the rate of Rs. 3125/-per month. It was argued that Rs. 330/ per month for a period of fourteen months does not add up to Rs. 37,997/-as mentioned in the said receipt. 20. Learned counsel for the revisionist has also referred to paper nos. 28-Ga(9) and 28-Ga(10) which are the counterfoils of the pay-in-slips of the UTI Bank dated 2.4.2005 and 31.3.2005, it has been argued that till 2005 rent at the rate of Rs. 330/-per month alone was being paid by the defendants to the landlord. 21. 20. Learned counsel for the revisionist has also referred to paper nos. 28-Ga(9) and 28-Ga(10) which are the counterfoils of the pay-in-slips of the UTI Bank dated 2.4.2005 and 31.3.2005, it has been argued that till 2005 rent at the rate of Rs. 330/-per month alone was being paid by the defendants to the landlord. 21. It has also been argued that at-least four Release Applications against tenants in shops situated in the same market had been filed as documentary evidence by the defendants showing that similar shops had rent of less than Rs. 500/-per month which were not referred to at all by the learned trial Court. 22. It was also argued that the quinquennial assessment of the property in dispute made by Nagar Nigam, Agra showed that in between 1987 to 1992 rent at the rate of Rs. 300/-per month was being given by Devan Das -the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant. 23. Learned counsel for the revisionist also referred to the additional written statement / affidavit filed by the tenant wherein mention was made of forged rent receipts paper nos. 28-Ga(1) to 28-Ga(11), being filed by the plaintiffs landlord. 24. It was also argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the landlords are influential businessmen of Agra and they owned huge property where in 70 shops are situated on the ground floor and a hotel with 100 A.C. rooms is being run by the landlord on the first, second and the third floor, but the lease rent of the Nazul property given by the landlords to Allahabad, Nagar Nigam is only Rs. 27/-per annum. Learned counsel for the revisionist referred to the plaintiffs renewal of Nazul lease application being rejected by Nagar Nigam, Agra and also to the fact that during the pendency of trial, written arguments and documentary evidence was filed by the defendants / tenant relating to Nazul land which were ignored by the learned trial Court. 25. It was also argued that even if benefit under Section 20(4) of the Rent Control Act as could not be given to the tenant, the benefit of Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act could have been considered by the learned trial Court which was not done. 26. Argument was raised regarding the fraud played by the landlord by forging rent receipts paper no. 26. Argument was raised regarding the fraud played by the landlord by forging rent receipts paper no. 28-Ga(1) and to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath 1994 (1) SCC 1 to argue that fraud vitiates all actions and this Court should therefore interfere its revisional jurisdiction in the order passed by the learned trial Court. 27. It has also been argued that at-least four SCC Suits were filed against four Rent Control tenants which were dismissed by the learned trial Court against which four civil revision no. 56 of 2012, 72 of 2012, 73 of 2012 and 74 of 2012 were filed before this Court, which were also dismissed on 3.2.2014. The same landlord had approached this Court against various tenants of different shops situated in the same market against the trial Court's orders in Small Causes Suits filed for eviction of tenants on the ground of default in payment of rent at the enhanced rate. The Suits had been dismissed by the learned Trial Court by separate, but identical judgments. The Revisions were all considered together by this Court, this Court observed that rate of rent in tenancy under the Rent Control Act could not be automatically increased pursuant to the notices of enhancement of rent given by the landlord, the failure of the tenant to pay enhanced rent of the premises did not amount to default. It was observed that in contractual tenancy not governed by any statutory law, the parties are free to agree for a fair and reasonable rent and for its enhancement periodically or on a particular occasion or event, but such would not be applicable in respect of statutory tenancy where statutory rent once fixed, either with the agreement of the parties or by the Authority competent, may not be enhanced otherwise than by following the procedure prescribed in the Statute. It was also observed that enhancement of rent should not be unreasonable and should be in accordance with the assessment of rental value / fixation of circle rate by the Collector concerned for the dispute. 28. It was also observed that enhancement of rent should not be unreasonable and should be in accordance with the assessment of rental value / fixation of circle rate by the Collector concerned for the dispute. 28. It was observed by this Court that there was no material on record that any of the defendants had accepted the demand of enhanced rent as raised by the landlord and because of statutory tenancy there was no scope for unilateral enhancement of rent and institution of eviction proceedings on the ground of default in payment of increase rent, was not tenable. 29. Sri Sudeep Harkauli appearing for the landlord / respondents herein, has on the other hand argued that it is apparent from a bare perusal of the copy of paper no. 28-Ga(1) that has been filed along with the stay application that it is only an incomplete document as the calculation made on the overleaf which has been referred to the by the learned trial Court in its judgment and order dated 15.3.2018 has not been filed. The pay-in-slips, copies of which have been filed as paper nos. 28-Ga(2) to 28-Ga(11) are only for the amount paid in cash in the bank as rent by the tenant in favour of the landlord. Since, the landlord was living outside Agra, he had asked all his tenants to deposit rent in his bank account for which the landlord issued receipts later on. 30. It is apparent from a perusal of the documentary evidence filed along with the stay application before this Court that the tenant was depositing rent at the rate of Rs. 3125/-per month w.e.f 1.9.2004. It has been argued that the story set up by the defendants that he continued to deposit the amount of rent in the bank account of the landlord till 31.3.2010, and thereafter tried to tender rent in cash to the landlord which was refused, seems implausible, as no one prevented the tenant from depositing such rent in the bank account of the landlord as he was already depositing such rent admittedly in the bank account of the landlord earlier. 31. 31. It has been argued further that it is also implausible that the tenant running a business, would not keep xerox copies of the pay-in-slips regarding deposit of rent in the bank, but would be satisfied by handing over originals of such pay-in-slips to the representative of the landlord. 32. With regard to other shops situated in the same property, any documentary evidence filed of plaints in other SCC Suits or of release application for adjacent shop was meaningless as this Court is concerned in this revision with the rate of rent as agreed upon between the tenant and the landlord for property no. 29/296-A/32. 33. It has been argued that the tenant in his oral statement had deposed before the learned trial Court that he made deposit of rent in cash in the bank account of the landlord and gave original counterfoil to the landlord, without keeping xerox copies, therefore he could not produce evidence that he deposited rent at the rate of Rs. 330/-per month only. However, the tenant did not dispute the signatures on the original counterfoil and the pay-in-slips that were filed before the learned trial Court as documentary evidence. 34. It has also been argued that it is quite implausible that the landlord himself would go on depositing rent in cash at the rate of Rs. 3125/-per month in the bank w.e.f. 2004 to 2008 in the name of the tenant, then stop the deposit thereafter, and wait for four years to file the Suit for eviction thereafter in 2012 alone. In the examination-in-chief of the tenant, the genuineness of paper nos. 28-Ga(1) to 28-Ga(11) were not disputed. In the affidavit filed also i.e. paper no. 89-Ga, there was no specific acceptance or denial of the receipts filed as documentary evidence. 35. The calculation overleaf of paper no. 28-Ga(1) was produced in Court by Sri Sudeep Harkauli as a photocopy to argue that the revisionist has resorted to deliberate concealment and the judgment cited by him, i.e. S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (supra) should be applied in this case and the revision be dismissed for deliberate concealment and misrepresentation of fact before this Court. 36. With regard to the paper nos. 28-Ga(9) and 28-Ga(10) which were referred to during the course of argument dated 2.4.2005 and 31.3.2005 of Rs. 990/-and Rs. 36. With regard to the paper nos. 28-Ga(9) and 28-Ga(10) which were referred to during the course of argument dated 2.4.2005 and 31.3.2005 of Rs. 990/-and Rs. 4620/-dated 2.4.2005 and 31.3.2005 respectively; It was argued by the learned counsel for the landlord / respondent that rent was not being received by him in cash. It was being deposited by the tenant in the bank account in the absence of the landlord. Therefore, there was no control of the landlord over the amount deposited by the tenant in the pay-in-slips in the bank. Thus, such pay-in-slips could not be relied upon as other pay-in-slips relating to the same period, showed rent being deposited at the rate of Rs. 3125/-per month after 1.9.2004. It was also argued that pay-in-slips dated 2.4.2005 and 31.3.2005 did not contain any signatures of the tenant, whereas all other pay-in-slips depositing rent at the rate of Rs. 3125/-per month had signatures of Vasudev. The said signatures were not disputed by the tenant before the learned trial Court. 37. It has also been argued that the rate of rent was a pure question of fact, which was determined by the learned trial Court after examining the original rent receipt and counterfoils of pay-in-slips. Since, this Court is dealing with a Revision under Section 25 of Provincial Small Causes Court Act where record has not been summoned of the learned trial Court, and it has been admitted in the written arguments filed by the tenant that all such documentary evidence was pasted on paper, and therefore the contents of the overleaf of paper no. 28-Ga(1) could not be obtained by the tenant, and there is a deliberate tampering of evidence / records filed before the learned trial Court so as to prejudice the case of the landlord; this Court should not interfere in the finding of fact recorded by the learned trial Court. 38. Learned counsel for the revisionist in rejoinder has submitted that the application filed for giving time for cross examination of the landlord and for production of Income Tax Return of the landlord and the written arguments filed before the learned trial Court as paper nos. 114-Ga, 117Ga and 118-Ga were completely ignored, and wrongly rejected on 27.2.2018 by the learned trial Court. An application for recall of order dated 27.2.2018 filed by the tenant was also rejected arbitrarily. 39. 114-Ga, 117Ga and 118-Ga were completely ignored, and wrongly rejected on 27.2.2018 by the learned trial Court. An application for recall of order dated 27.2.2018 filed by the tenant was also rejected arbitrarily. 39. It has also been argued that the pay-in-slips that have been filed as paper nos. 28-Ga(2) to 28-Ga(11) add up to Rs. 1,06,107/-only whereas the rent receipt filed as paper no. 28-Ga(1) has been issued for Rs. 1,39,985/-. It has also been argued that there is no averment in the plaint as to how the rent was enhanced for Rs. 330/-per month to Rs. 3125/-per month unilaterally, as the tenant continued to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 330/-per month w.e.f. 1.10.2010 upto 31.1.2013 before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Agra in Misc. Case No. 26 of 2011. The knowledge of Misc Case No. 26 of 2011 (Vasudev Vs. Sudeep Kumar Jain) was not denied by the landlord at any stage before the learned trial Court. 40. It has also been argued that all relevant facts have not been considered by the learned trial Court and the judgment rendered on 15.3.2018 has been rendered in a tearing hurry, and therefore it be set aside and the matter remanded to the learned trial Court for a consideration afresh. 41. Having heard the arguments made by the learned counsel for the respondents, I have also carefully perused all documentary evidence place on record by the revisionist. 42. Since, argument was heard at length on various dates and there was an agreement that this Civil Revision be disposed of at the admission stage itself, no counter affidavit was called for from the landlord / respondents. The judgment was reserved on 26.4.2018 and written arguments were filed thereafter by Sri Balwinder Singh Suri reiterating most of the grounds raised during the course of argument by him in Court. 43. This Court after consideration of the arguments made by the learned counsel for the parties and the order of the learned trial Court, has found that the learned trial Court has referred to the original copies of paper nos. 28-Ga(1) to 28-Ga(11) repeatedly in the judgment, and then come to a conclusion that the rate of rent agreed upon to be paid was Rs. 3125/-per month. 28-Ga(1) to 28-Ga(11) repeatedly in the judgment, and then come to a conclusion that the rate of rent agreed upon to be paid was Rs. 3125/-per month. This finding of fact although has been disputed as perverse, this Court finds that the revisionist has not filed the calculation that was made on the back side of receipt no. 162 dated 1.5.2008 i.e. Paper No. 28-Ga(1) before the learned trial Court. This portion of the rent receipt has been produced before this Court as a photocopy by the learned counsel for the landlord / respondent. It clearly shows an attempt at concealment on the part of the tenant. 44. Even if the argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist is to be believed that regarding quinquennial assessment by the Nagar Nigam of the property in dispute stating Dewan Das -father of the revisionist being tenant of the shop at Rs. 300/-per month, such quinquennial statement is only of the year 1987 to 1992, the SCC Suit was filed in 2012. The circle rate or annual assessment of rental value declared by the Collector later on was not filed by the tenant to prove his case that the rent was still Rs. 330/-per month only, even after twenty years. Once the initial burden of proof was discharged by the landlord by filing original copies of rent receipts and pay-in-slips, the onus shifted up on the tenant to file documentary evidence to show that the rent of the shop in question continued to be Rs. 330/-per month only, even after 20 years. 45. The learned Trial Court has referred to the failure of the defendant to produce documentary evidence to prove his case. It has also referred to failure of the defendant in his oral statement to dispute the signatures on the original rent receipt and original pay-in-slips filed by the plaintiffs. 46. In the written arguments that have been filed by the revisionist, it has been mentioned that the learned counsel for the revisionist applied for certified copy of the list of documents filed by the landlord before the learned trial Court, but the copy of the back portion / overleaf of paper no. 28-Ga(1) could not be supplied, since the back part of the rent receipt was completely pasted and did not have any paper number assigned to it. 28-Ga(1) could not be supplied, since the back part of the rent receipt was completely pasted and did not have any paper number assigned to it. Since, the back part of the rent receipts referred as 28-Ga(1) could not be legally obtained and as it had not been assigned any number by the learned trial Court, it could not have been relied upon by the learned trial Court in the judgment impugned. 47. This Court does not find any good ground to accept the argument raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist. If by the fault of the office of the learned trial Court, evidence has been destroyed which was admittedly there before the learned trial Court at the time of consideration of the case and delivery of judgment on 15.3.2018, benefit of such fault cannot be given to either of the litigating parties. The observations of the learned Trial Court regarding mention of details of deposit of rent by the tenant on the overleaf of paper no. 28-Ga(1) filed in its original before it have to be taken to be true. 48. Learned counsel for the revisionist has referred to judgment rendered in Milap Chandra Jain-I Vs. State of U.P. & others 2001 (2) ARC 488 and Milap Chandra Jain-II Vs. Roop Kishore decided on 3.2.2014, during the course of arguments, and to the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in Neena Jain & other Vs. State of U.P. & others 2014 (1) ARC 877 where Neena Jain had prayed for a direction to declare U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 as ultravirus to the Constitution of India. 49. This Court has carefully perused the judgment rendered in Neena Jain (supra) by a Division Bench of this Court reported in 2014 Law Suit (Alld.) 932. The Division Bench of this Court observed that the ratio of the judgment in Milaap Chandra Jain-I (supra) and Milap Chandra Jain-II (supra) is not correct. The reasoning given in these judgments is based upon Malpa Vishwanath Acharya's case AIR 1998 SC 602 in which the Supreme Court had referred to an extreme situation where rents were pegged to the year 1940, had held the Act to be invalid. 50. The reasoning given in these judgments is based upon Malpa Vishwanath Acharya's case AIR 1998 SC 602 in which the Supreme Court had referred to an extreme situation where rents were pegged to the year 1940, had held the Act to be invalid. 50. This Court observed “ ------- learned Single Judge deciding these cases failed to notice the settled law that unreasonableness, which is a relative term, in the absence of any challenge to legislative competence and the provisions of the Act being violative of fundamental rights, cannot be accepted as grounds to challenge the validity of any Act, or its provisions. The judgment in Milap Chandra Jain-I and Milap Chandra Jain-II are thus held to be bad in law -------” 51. It has been argued by Sri Balwinder Singh Suri that the judgment rendered in Neena Jain Vs. State of U.P. & others (supra) is subject of Appeal before the Supreme Court. A copy of the Supreme Court order dated 24.1.2017 in SLP No. 14468-14469 / 2014 has been filed to show the pendency of the SLP, and an argument has also been raised that since the legal possession is still fluid and the present shop in dispute being governed by U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, this Court should remand the matter for fresh consideration by the trial Court in accordance with the law yet to be settled. This argument is legally untenable and cannot be accepted. 52. Learned counsel for the revisionist has also referred to judgment rendered by this Court in Sudhir Chandra Gupta Vs. IIIrd ADJ, Mainpuri & another AIR 1987 (1) ARC 171 that mesne profits and damages cannot be awarded, at a rate more than the rate of rent of the property in dispute, is inapplicable to the facts of the case, as the shop in dispute is not covered by the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. 53. Learned counsel for the revisionist has also relied upon judgment and order dated 18.1.2017 in SCC Revision No. 364 of 2014 (Anil Kumar Verma Vs. Smt. Manju Gupta). 54. This Court has carefully perused the judgment of the Coordinate Bench which has observed that no documentary evidence either in the shape of rent note, or a rent agreement or a rent receipt, was filed on behalf of the parties. Smt. Manju Gupta). 54. This Court has carefully perused the judgment of the Coordinate Bench which has observed that no documentary evidence either in the shape of rent note, or a rent agreement or a rent receipt, was filed on behalf of the parties. Both sides had led oral evidence alone in support of the respective cases, learned trial Court had not mentioned the reasons as to why the evidence of the plaintiff was not acceptable as compared to the evidence of the defendants. The issue being a question of fact, the finding on the question having been returned without appreciating evidence, the order of the trial Court was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration by the learned trial Court. It is apparent that the said judgment is inapplicable on the facts of the case as here original rent receipt and pay-in-slips were filed. 55. The other judgment cited by the learned counsel for the revisionist is that of Ashok Kumar Vs Rishi Ram reported 2002 (5) SCC 641 . This judgment is also inapplicable, as it relates to a property covered under the provisions of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. 56. Similarly, judgment of Babu Ram through LRS Vs. Special Judge / Additional District Judge reported in 2004 (3) AWC 1913 and Mohd Rafiq Vs First Additional District Judge & others 1996 (2) AWC 949 also relate to a property covered under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and are therefore inapplicable to the facts of this case. 57. This Court therefore does not find any good ground to show interference in the order of the learned trial Court. This revision being devoid of merits is rejected. 58 Since, this Court has rejected the Revision, the benefit of the judgment and order dated 15.3.2018 shall be available to the plaintiff / landlord / respondent. The revisionist is directed to handover peaceful and vacant possession of the property in dispute within one month from today.