ORDER : Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. 1. The instant revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.4.2013 passed by Additional District Judge, Ex-cadre No. 3, Saharanpur whereby, SCC Suit No. 48/2011 instituted by the plaintiff respondents has been decreed for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent. 2. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff respondents with the allegation that the defendant revisionist is tenant of a shop and verandah (for short 'disputed premises') on a monthly rent of Rs. 1800/- per month plus 12% water tax. The provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable. He had defaulted in payment of rent since 1.1.2009. A notice dated 18.10.2011 was sent to him by registered post demanding arrears of rent and terminating his tenancy. The defendant revisionist refused to receive the notice. He also failed to pay arrears of rent, consequently, after expiry of thirty days from the date of service of notice, he became liable for eviction. 3. The suit was contested by the defendant revisionist by filing written statement asserting that he had been tenant of the disputed premises since the time of its erstwhile owner and landlord Anwar Abbas son of Syed Asgar Abbas on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/-. It was also asserted that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (for short 'the Act') were fully applicable. The building, of which disputed shop is a part, was purchased by the plaintiffs' by four registered sale deeds, all executed in July 2008. He claimed that plaintiff No. 1 (Tauseef Haidar) had realised rent till November 2011, but he did not issue rent receipts. He further pleaded that the entire alleged arrears of rent from 1.1.2009 including interest, cost, etc. as contemplated under Section 20(4) of the Act had been deposited and thus, he is entitled to benefit of the said provision. 4. The trial Court, while decreeing the suit, has framed various points for determination. While deciding point No. 1 relating to rate of rent, the trial Court held that the rent of the disputed premises is Rs. 1800/- per month. It has been observed that according to the plaintiffs, the old number of the disputed shop was 6/442E/9. It was previously in tenancy of one Mr. Jain, while Almirah bearing No. 6/442/10 was in the tenancy of the defendant revisionist. The shop in the tenancy of Mr. 1800/- per month. It has been observed that according to the plaintiffs, the old number of the disputed shop was 6/442E/9. It was previously in tenancy of one Mr. Jain, while Almirah bearing No. 6/442/10 was in the tenancy of the defendant revisionist. The shop in the tenancy of Mr. Jain was lying vacant. After purchase of the building, both almirah and the shop were let out to the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 1800/-. Thus, according to the plaintiffs, a new tenancy came into existence with rent of Rs. 1800/- per month. The trial Court has also observed that as per oral statement of the plaintiff and his witnesses, the new tenancy came into being after one month of the purchase of the building by the plaintiff respondents. Accordingly, rent up to 31.8.2008 was paid by the defendant revisionist @ Rs. 100/- per month to plaintiff No. 1 - Tauseef Haidar and thereafter @ Rs. 1800/- per month up to December 2008. For arriving at the above conclusion, the trial Court has placed reliance upon municipal assessment paper No. 41Ga in which one shop is shown as vacant. In the same document, name of the defendant is recorded as tenant against another shop. It has been inferred therefrom that the shop shown as vacant in paper No. 41Ga was let out to the defendant revisionist, after it was vacated by the tenant Mr. Jain. The trial Court while deciding point No. 2 has held that service of notice was duly made by refusal. While deciding point No. 3, the trial Court held that the defendant revisionist had deposited rent from 1.1.2009 to November 2011 @ Rs. 100/- per month on 27.1.2012 and not @ Rs. 1800/- per month, nor water tax, consequently, he was not entitled to the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act. Accordingly, the tenancy was found to be validly terminated by notice dated 18.10.2011 and the suit has been decreed. 5. Learned counsel for the defendant revisionist submitted that the finding recorded by the trial Court regarding coming into existence of a new tenancy in respect of adjoining shop allegedly vacated by Mr. Jain is wholly beyond the pleadings. He further submitted that the trial Court has misread paper No. 41Ga, the municipal assessment. 5. Learned counsel for the defendant revisionist submitted that the finding recorded by the trial Court regarding coming into existence of a new tenancy in respect of adjoining shop allegedly vacated by Mr. Jain is wholly beyond the pleadings. He further submitted that the trial Court has misread paper No. 41Ga, the municipal assessment. According to him, since the building was purchased by the plaintiffs by four different sale deeds, each plaintiff had one-fourth share. Consequently, out of twelve tenements, three tenements came to be recorded in the name of each plaintiff. It is submitted that paper No. 39Ga, 40Ga and 42Ga are other assessments which were ignored from consideration and a perusal whereof reveals that Mr. Jain is still recorded, as tenant in paper Nos. 39Ga and 40Ga. According to him, these shops had fallen in the share of Smt. Nazma (plaintiff No. 4) and Tauseef Haidar (plaintiff No. 1). It is further submitted that the shop next to the shop of the defendant revisionist is shown as vacant even in the year 1991-97 (Paper No. 33Ga). Thus, according to his submission, the inference drawn from paper No. 41 Ga without considering the other assessments, which are also part of the record, has rendered the finding of the trial Court illegal and perverse. 6. On the other hand, Sri V.M. Zaidi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff respondents tried to contend that the plaint contains all relevant pleadings. According to him, it was not necessary for the plaintiffs to plead that any fresh tenancy had come into existence. It was sufficient that the rate of rent was disclosed in the plaint. It was the burden of the defendant revisionist to prove that he had duly tendered rent to the plaintiffs and was not in default. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 8. A perusal of the plaint averments would show that in the plaint, the only assertion is that the rent of the disputed premises is Rs. 1800/- per month and which the defendant' revisionist had failed to pay since 1.1.2009. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 8. A perusal of the plaint averments would show that in the plaint, the only assertion is that the rent of the disputed premises is Rs. 1800/- per month and which the defendant' revisionist had failed to pay since 1.1.2009. It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs are not the original owner and landlord of the disputed premises, but they had purchased the same by four different registered sale deeds executed in their favour by the erstwhile owner and landlord in July 2008. The specific case of the defendant revisionist in the written statement was that he had been tenant since the time of previous owner and landlord, of the entire disputed premises @ Rs. 100/- per month and he had also paid rent at the said rate, even to the plaintiff respondents, but rent receipts were not issued to him. The plaintiffs had not disclosed the fact that they had become owner and landlord of the disputed tenement by virtue of sale deeds executed in their favour by erstwhile owner and landlord in July 2008. The plaint is also conspicuous by absence of pleading regarding coming into existence of any fresh tenancy after the building was purchased by the plaintiffs. There is not even a whisper in the plaint that previously the defendant revisionist was tenant of an Almirah, but after they purchased the building, the parties entered into a fresh contract of tenancy where-under, one more shop was let out to the defendant revisionist and rent was enhanced from Rs. 100/- per month to Rs. 1800/- per month. Even in the oral statement, where for the first time, PW 1 set up a plea relating to coming into existence of fresh tenancy, the municipal number of the Almirah in respect of which the defendant revisionist was alleged to be tenant since the time of erstwhile owner and landlord was not disclosed. The municipal number of the shop, which was vacated by the tenant Mr. Jain was also not disclosed. The observation made by the trial Court in the impugned order that according to the plaintiffs, the old number of the shop in which Mr. Jain was tenant, was 6/442E/9 and that of Almirah was 6/442/10, is wholly perverse. The municipal number of the shop, which was vacated by the tenant Mr. Jain was also not disclosed. The observation made by the trial Court in the impugned order that according to the plaintiffs, the old number of the shop in which Mr. Jain was tenant, was 6/442E/9 and that of Almirah was 6/442/10, is wholly perverse. PW 1, even in his statement, did not disclose the municipal number of the shop of Mr. Jain nor that of the defendant revisionist. 9. The trial Court has primarily placed reliance upon municipal assessment paper No. 41Ga, in which three shops are recorded in the name of Smt. Rafat Fatma (Plaintiff No. 3) during the period 2009-14. The first shop is shown in occupation of Ateeq Ahmed (defendant revisionist), the second shop is shown as vacant and the third shop is shown as "self-residence". It is noteworthy that there were three other municipal assessments of the same period i.e. 2009-2014 paper No. 39Ga, 40Ga, and 42Ga in which three other parts of the building are recorded in the name of the remaining three plaintiffs. In paper No. 39Ga, one shop is shown in possession of Mr. Jain. The name of owner of the premises has been mentioned as Smt. Nazma (plaintiff No. 4). Again, in paper No. 40Ga, name of Mr. Jain is shown as tenant of one other shop. The owner of the premises is mentioned as Tauseef Haidar (plaintiff No. 1). These two assessments in which the name of the tenant Mr. Jain still continue to be recorded not against one but two other shops has altogether been ignored from consideration by the trial Court. One more important extract of assessment paper No. 45Ga for the period 2003-08 has also not been taken into consideration. The last three entries of the said assessment shows that premises No. 6/442E/10 is recorded in the name of Ateeq Ahmed (defendant revisionist) and premises No. 6/442E/11 is shown as vacant and premises No. 6/442E/12 is shown as self-residence. These three entries in the assessment for the period 2003-08 are identical to the entries in paper No. 41Ga. It is also noteworthy that in paper No. 45Ga, name of Mr. Jain is shown as tenant of two different shops, other than the three shops falling to the share of Smt. Rafat Fatima - plaintiff No. 3. These three entries in the assessment for the period 2003-08 are identical to the entries in paper No. 41Ga. It is also noteworthy that in paper No. 45Ga, name of Mr. Jain is shown as tenant of two different shops, other than the three shops falling to the share of Smt. Rafat Fatima - plaintiff No. 3. PW 1, in his statement alleged that at the time of purchase of building, he was given vacant possession of the entire building except the shop in which the defendant revisionist is tenant. He also admits that the entry of the name of defendant revisionist was not made in respect of second shop allegedly let out to him, after the purchase of the building by the plaintiffs. He also admits that the annual value of the shop, which was in the tenancy of Mr. Jain, and was allegedly vacated by him, had remained the same even after it was let out to the defendant revisionist. It shows that the municipal assessments do not record the changes taking place from time-to-time. As such, merely on basis of paper No. 42, inference drawn by the trial Court was wholly unwarranted. 10. The plaintiffs themselves admit that in the past rent was Rs. 100/- per month. Their entire case is based on the plea that after one month of purchase of the building, the defendant revisionist entered into a fresh contract of tenancy whereunder, one more shop was let out to him, and rent was enhanced from Rs. 100/- per month to Rs. 1800/- per month. They even claimed that rent at enhanced rate i.e. Rs. 1800/- per month was paid to them from September 2008 to December 2008. However, no evidence could be produced by them in this regard as it was their own case that they were not issuing rent receipts. As such, the Court is of considered opinion that the fact relating to coming into existence of new tenancy, ought to have been pleaded in the plaint, so that the defendant tenant would be in position to rebut the same in a proper manner. The plaintiffs had taken an entirely new case in their statement and even therein, they had failed to disclose the municipal number of Almirah and shop in the tenancy of Mr. The plaintiffs had taken an entirely new case in their statement and even therein, they had failed to disclose the municipal number of Almirah and shop in the tenancy of Mr. Jain, and thus, they failed to co-relate the municipal assessments, with the disputed premises, even in their oral statement. 11. Having regard to the above facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the trial Court accepting the version of the plaintiffs that a fresh contract of tenancy came into existence after purchase of the building by the plaintiffs and whereunder the rent was settled at a sum of Rs. 1800/- per month is wholly unsustainable in law. 12. The defendant revisionist has deposited rent @ Rs. 100/- per month to avail benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act, but as noted above, benefit of the said provision has been denied to him primarily on the ground that rent was not deposited @ Rs. 1800/- per month. Consequently, the finding recorded in this regard also cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. 13. As a result of above discussion, the instant revision succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 27.4.2013 passed by the trial Court is set-aside and the matter is remanded to the trial Court for deciding the suit a fresh, in accordance with law, having regard to the observations made above. It shall be open to the plaintiff respondents to amend the plaint, if so advised, and in which event, it goes without saying that the defendant revisionist would get opportunity to file additional written statement. It shall also be open to the parties to lead fresh evidence.