JUDGMENT : Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. Heard Shri Ashish Kumar Dwivedi, Advocate, holding brief of Shri Vikas Tiwari, learned counsel for the defendant/tenant-revisionist and Shri Ram Tiwari, learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite party. 2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the opposite party No. 1 is, undisputedly, the owner and landlord of House No. 145, Dal Mandi, Sadar, Meerut, Cantt., in which the dependant-revisionist is the tenant from a very long time at the rant Rs. 50/- per month was paid and as such the plaintiff/landlord-opposite party No. 1 filed a Case No. 38 of 1990 under Section 21(8) of UP Act 13 of 1972 for enhancement of rent. By order dated 26.10.1999, the prescribed authority enhanced the rent to Rs. 1537/- per month with effect from 1.12.1999. 3. Aggrieved with this order, the plaintiff-landlord and the defendant-revisionist, both, filed Misc. Appeal No. 313 of 1991 and Misc. Appeal No. 334 of 1999, respectively, before the District Judge, Meerut, and both the appeals were dismissed by a common judgment dated 26.5.2006, which was challenged by the defendant-revisionist in Writ-A No. 40482 of 2006 (Church City Junior High School v. Shri Banarsi Das and another). The writ petition was dismissed by this Court by order dated 18.8.2015. The conditions of interim order dated 31.7.2006, passed by the Court in aforesaid writ, were not complied with and the arrears of rent @ Rs. 1537/- per month, was not deposited. It is admitted by learned counsel for the defendant-revisionist that defendant-revisionist has not deposited the enhanced rent, so far. 4. Since, the enhanced rent, in terms of the order dated 26.10.1999, as affirmed by appellate order dated 26.5.2006, was not paid by the defendant-revisionist, therefore, plaintiff/landlord-respondent No. 1, issued a notice dated 12.7.2006 to the defendant-revisionist under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1882'). By the said notice, the tenancy was determined and arrears of rent were demanded. 5. Since, the defendant-revisionist neither vacated the premises nor paid the arrears, and as such, the plaintiff/landlord-respondent No. 1 filed S.C.C. Suit No. 44 of 2006 (Shri Krishna Gopal v. Church City Junior High School and another), which was decreed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Meerut, by judgment dated 26.3.2016. 6. 5. Since, the defendant-revisionist neither vacated the premises nor paid the arrears, and as such, the plaintiff/landlord-respondent No. 1 filed S.C.C. Suit No. 44 of 2006 (Shri Krishna Gopal v. Church City Junior High School and another), which was decreed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Meerut, by judgment dated 26.3.2016. 6. Aggrieved with this judgment, the defendant/tenant-revisionist has filed the present revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1887'). 7. Learned counsel for the defendant/tenant-revisionist submits as under: "The defendant-tenant is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, but neither the notice was issued to the Society nor the society was impleaded as defendant in the aforesaid S.C.C. Suit No. 44 of 2006, and as such, the impugned judgment dated 26.3.2016 deserves to be set aside." 8. Learned counsel for the defendant-revisionist states that the afore-noted argument is the only argument and he does not want to argue any other point. 9. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/landlord-respondent No. 1 submits that the defendant-revisionist is a very old tenant. The plaintiff-landlord has never let out the disputed accommodation to the alleged Society. It was let out to the defendant-revisionist. On account of continuous default in payment of rent, his tenancy was determined after due notice, which was well served upon the defendant-revisionist on 14.7.2006. As per own showing of defendant-revisionist, the alleged Society came into existence in the year 1996-97, while the defendant-revisionist is a tenant in the disputed accommodation, much prior to that. Even the case for enhancement of rent was filed in the year 1990, which shows that the society was never the tenant in the disputed accommodation. 10. That apart, the defendant/tenant-revisionist has not deposited the arrears and, therefore, under Order 15, Rule 5 of C.P.C. Therefore, the defence of revisionist was struck off by the court below. He submits that the defendant-revisionist has dragged the plaintiff-landlord in litigation for more than 29 years but neither paid the enhanced rent nor the arrears of rent. He further submits that the defendant-revisionist has abused the process of Court and, therefore, the revision may be dismissed with exemplary costs. 11. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of revision before me. 12. He further submits that the defendant-revisionist has abused the process of Court and, therefore, the revision may be dismissed with exemplary costs. 11. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of revision before me. 12. From the record, it appears that the defendant-revisionist is a very old tenant of the disputed building. According to own showing of the defendant-revisionist, the alleged Society came into existence in the year 1996-97. The plaintiff/landlord-respondent has never let out the disputed house to the alleged Society. In the aforesaid Writ-A No. 40482 of 2006, arising from rent enhancement matter, the defendant-revisionist took the stand that he is tenant since the year 1924. Thus, the court below has correctly recorded the finding of fact that the defendant-revisionist is the tenant. 13. The defendant/tenant-revisionist has not deposited the arrears of rent and damages, etc., on the first date of hearing in S.C.C. Suit No. 44 of 2006. Consequently, his defence was struck off by order dated 15.9.2008, passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Meerut. Against the aforesaid order, the defendant/tenant-revisionist filed a Civil Revision No. 432 of 2008 (Church City Junior High School and another v. Krishna Gopal), which was dismissed by this Court by a detailed order dated 12.9.2014. 14. The aforesaid S.C.C. Suit has been decreed on 26.3.2016, after well considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the evidences on record and the submissions of the parties. The findings, recorded in the impugned judgment, are findings of fact based on relevant evidences on record, which cannot be interfered in revisional jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Act, 1887. 15. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision. In fact, the defendant/tenant-revisionist has abused the process of law, which is evident from the facts briefly mentioned above. 16. Under the circumstances, this revision deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik and another v. Pradnya Prakash Khandekar and others, 2017 (5) SCC 496 (paragraphs 14 and 15). 17. In view of the aforesaid, the revision is dismissed with cost of Rs. 25,000/-, which the defendant-revisionist shall deposit with the court below, within six weeks from today.