JUDGMENT Rajan Roy, J. Heard Mr. Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Mohd. Aslam Khan, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as Mr. Vidya Dhar Upadhyay and Mr. Amrendra Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This revision has been filed under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred as 'Act 1887') challenging the judgement and order dated 25.08.2021 passed by the SCC Court in SCC Suit No. 52 of 2018 by which the said suit of the respondent-plaintiff for arrears of rent, eviction and damages has been allowed. 3. Facts of the case in brief are that the revisionist-defendant was a tenant of the respondent-plaintiff. As he defaulted in payment of rent and there were arrears thereof accordingly on 06.11.2018 a legal notice was given determining the tenancy, asking the revisionist to vacate the premises and to handover peaceful possession, as also, claiming arrears of rent and damages for unauthorized occupation. Based on the said notice, aforesaid suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiff claiming the reliefs already referred here in above. Written statement was filed by the revisionist-defendant, however, his defense was struck off under Order XV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred as 'CPC'), as was applicable in the State of U.P., by the order of the SCC Court dated 16.02.2021. The said order was challenged by the revisionist herein before this Court by means of SCC Revision No. 11 of 2021 (M/S T.R. Diamond Pvt. Ltd. D Divas 1, Hazratganj, Lucknow v. M/S Priyanshi Developers Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Auth. Sign. Vivek Jain), but, the revision was dismissed on 29.11.2021. The challenge was not taken any further by the revisionist, thus, the said orders have attained finality between the parties. 4. The SCC Court framed following points for determination in the SCC Suit: (A) Whether there was relationship of tenant and landlord between the parties to the suit? (B) Whether the notice given by the plaintiff was valid? (C) Whether the defendant in suit had defaulted in payment of rent? (D) The relief, if any, to which the plaintiff was entitled. 5. The SCC Court recorded a finding regarding point (A) that there was a relationship of tenant and landlord between the parties before it and the same had been duly proved on the basis of evidence. (C) Whether the defendant in suit had defaulted in payment of rent? (D) The relief, if any, to which the plaintiff was entitled. 5. The SCC Court recorded a finding regarding point (A) that there was a relationship of tenant and landlord between the parties before it and the same had been duly proved on the basis of evidence. In fact, this was admitted by the defendant in another suit being Original Suit No. 2629 of 2014 which had been filed by Mr. Aveg Mehrotra Director of M/s T.R. Diamond Pvt. Ltd. (revisionist herein), certified copy of which was filed by the plaintiff. 6. As regards point (B), it was held that notice was valid and it had been duly served upon defendant, a fact which had been proved on the basis of evidence on record including the testimony of PW-1 and track consignment document of the post office which had been filed. 7. As regards point (C), a finding was recorded that the defendant had defaulted in payment of rent. In this context, the SCC Court relied upon statement of defendant wherein he had admitted the relationship of tenant and landlord and also that the premises had been let out to it on a monthly rent of Rs.3, 77, 000/- per month in the plaint of Original Suit No. 2629 of 2014 filed on its behalf, as already referred. Based on it, the SCC Court determined the rate of rent as Rs.3, 77, 000/- per month. With regard to the assertion of the defendant that based on the compromise rent had been determined at Rs.2, 85, 285/- per month in April, 2015, it recorded a finding that there was no evidence which supports the said assertion. The SCC Court in this very context held that the rate of rent as on the date of filing the suit was Rs.3, 77, 000/- per month and the tenant had defaulted in payment of rent for a period of 36 months preceding the filing of the suit, which obviously on account of the period of limitation prescribed. The SCC Court in this very context held that the rate of rent as on the date of filing the suit was Rs.3, 77, 000/- per month and the tenant had defaulted in payment of rent for a period of 36 months preceding the filing of the suit, which obviously on account of the period of limitation prescribed. Based on the aforesaid, the SCC Court considered the amount deposited by the revisionist-defendant and found that as against Rs.1, 35, 72, 000/- (Rupees one crore thirty five lakh and seventy two thousand) rent for the period of 36 months referred above at the rate of Rs.3, 77, 000/- per month, an amount of Rs.16, 80, 000/- had been deposited as rent by the defendant till the filing of the suit, thus the defendant was in default of Rs.1, 18, 92, 000/-. Apart from it, during pendency of the suit the defendant deposited Rs.13, 72, 500/- under Order XV Rule 5 CPC through tender and further deposited two amounts of Rs.5, 00, 000/- each through RTGS in the account of the plaintiff which was admitted to him. Thus, a total of Rs.23, 72, 500/- was paid as rent by the plaintiff as against due amount of Rs.1, 35, 72, 000/-. 8. Accordingly, an order was passed by the SCC Court for vacating the premises within 45 days and handover the possession to the plaintiff, failing which proceedings could be initiated by the plaintiff for its execution at his cost. In addition to it, out of the due amount as on date of filing of the suit i.e. Rs.1, 18, 92, 000/-, the amount deposited by the defendant during pendency of the suit i.e., Rs.23, 72, 500/- had been deducted and paid to the plaintiff. In addition to it, rent was ordered to be paid by the defendant to the revisionist at the rate of Rs.3, 77, 000/- from the date of institution of the suit every month till date of handing over of possession as pendente lite and future damages for use and occupation of the premises. 9. Against the aforesaid backdrop, the contention of the revisionist's counsel was as under: (i) The suit filed by Mr. Vivek Jain on behalf of M/s Priyanshi Developers Private Limited was not a legally instituted suit. 9. Against the aforesaid backdrop, the contention of the revisionist's counsel was as under: (i) The suit filed by Mr. Vivek Jain on behalf of M/s Priyanshi Developers Private Limited was not a legally instituted suit. In this context, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revisionist, invited attention of the Court to the plaint which is at page 68 and which had been filed on behalf of M/s Priyanshi Developers Private Limited through its authorized signatory Mr. Vivek Jain and at page 104 which is the Board's resolution signed by two Directors of the aforesaid company. Learned Senior Counsel referred to Section 2 (51) and (59) of the Companies Act to contend that Mr. Vivek Jain was not a key managerial personnel nor an Officer of the Company, therefore, he could not maintain the suit. In this context he relied upon the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of State Bank of Travancore v. Kingstor Computers India Private Limited; (2011) 11 SCC 524 and Vijay Arjun Bhagat & Ors. v. Nana Laxman Tapkire & Ors.; (2018) 6 SCC 727 . He also referred to paragraphs 3, 5, 10, 12, 13 and 18 of the plaint. (ii) Once the written statement/defense of the revisionist was struck off, the SCC Court could not have relied upon the same in favour of the plaintiff. (iii) No finding about validity and service of legal notice had been recorded by the Court below. (iv) No finding had been recorded about arrears of rent and default in payment of the same. Tax Deducted at Source (TDS), security paid in respect of the tenancy, price of jewelry purchased by the plaintiff from the defendant had not been taken into consideration by the SCC Court while calculating the due amount. The unregistered lease-deed which was for nine years could not been read, not even for collateral purposes to support the case of the plaintiff. (v) Rate of rent had not been determined and decree for arrears of rent had been passed without doing so. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the contentions of the revisionist's counsel are factually and legally unsustainable as the SCC Court had given cogent reasons on all the aforesaid points. Bare reading of the SCC Court's judgement belies the arguments of learned counsel the revisionist. 11. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the contentions of the revisionist's counsel are factually and legally unsustainable as the SCC Court had given cogent reasons on all the aforesaid points. Bare reading of the SCC Court's judgement belies the arguments of learned counsel the revisionist. 11. On the question of adjustment of security amount, he submitted that in the plaint itself the said amount had been mentioned in Schedule-A and if the same has not been adjusted by the SCC Court, then, it can be adjusted under orders of this Court. 12. As regards Tax Deduced at Source (TDS), the respondent-plaintiff has filed an affidavit stating that the Tax Deducted at Source by the revisionist in connection with the PAN account of the respondent was Rs.19, 31, 826/-, but, as the SCC Court has awarded only three months' rent (36 months' rent), therefore, the TDS mentioned with respect to the financial year 2013-14 (Assessment Year 2014-15) amounting to Rs.4, 52, 400/- and financial year 2014-15 (Assessment Year 2015-16) amounting to Rs.4, 52, 400/-, is not liable to be added to the benefit of the revisionist. Thus, this amount of Rs.9, 04, 800/- is liable to be deducted from the claim of the revisionist, meaning thereby, out of Rs.19, 31, 826/-, after deduction of amount of Rs.9, 04, 800/- an amount of Rs.10, 27, 026/- which had been deducted at source by the revisionist and benefit of which has been availed by the respondent-plaintiff, is liable to be deducted from the due amount mentioned by the SCC Court in the impugned judgement, as this aspect has not been considered by the SCC Court. Learned counsel for the respondent fairly conceded on this issue to the extent aforesaid. 13. As regards price of jewelry allegedly purchased by the respondent-plaintiff, it was submitted that the defense of the revisionist-defendant having been struck off, there is nothing on record to establish this claim. The Court finds merits in this submission of the respondent. 14. Now, coming back to the arguments of learned counsel for the revisionist this Court finds, on a reading of the judgement of the SCC Court and the provisions of the Companies Act in the light of plaint averments that, the said plaint was filed on behalf of M/s Priyanshi Developers Private Limited which is a registered company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 through Mr. Vivek Jain and in para 1 of the plaint, it was clearly mentioned that Mr. Vivek Jain was fully empowered by the Board of Directors and duly authorized to do pairvi of the aforementioned case on behalf of the plaintiff as well as to file the legal documents on its behalf. As already stated that although the defense/written statement of the revisionist-defendant has been struck off, but, it is worth mentioning while replying to the said paragraph of the plaint it was stated that they need no comment. This apart, the document at page 104 is duly signed by two of the Directors of the plaintiff-company and it mentions about the resolution passed at a meeting of the Board of Directors of the said company on 08.10.2018 by which Mr. Vivek Jain was authorized to file the suit, sign the plaint, etc. 15. section 21 of the Companies Act, 2013 deals with the authentication of document, proceedings and contracts. It provides that save as otherwise provided in this Act, a document or proceeding requiring authentication by a company or contracts made by or on behalf of a company, may be signed by any key managerial personnel or an officer or employee of the company of the company duly authorized by the Board in this behalf. Now, the term key managerial personnel has been defined in Section 2 (51) of the said Act, 2013 to mean, in relation to a Company, the Chief Executive Officer or the managing director or the manager; the company secretary; the whole-time director; the Chief Financial Officer; such other officer, not more than one level below the directors who is in whole-time employment, designated as key managerial personnel by the Board; and such other officer as may be prescribed. Now, the document at page 104 is an authentication of the resolution of the Board of Directors dated 08.10.2018 and it has been signed by two Directors. There is nothing on record to show that they were not whole time Directors. 16. In view of above discussion, the first contention of Mr. Khan that the suit was not legally instituted does not appear to be tenable. The suit was legally instituted through an authorized person and the provisions of the Act 2013 relied upon by him do not persuade the Court to take any other view of the matter. 17. 16. In view of above discussion, the first contention of Mr. Khan that the suit was not legally instituted does not appear to be tenable. The suit was legally instituted through an authorized person and the provisions of the Act 2013 relied upon by him do not persuade the Court to take any other view of the matter. 17. With regard to the second contention, this Court is of the opinion the same is also factually incorrect. While it is true that in the judgement of SCC Court at one place it has been mentioned that though the defense/written statement has been struck off, the admissions made therein can be relied upon to arrive at a finding with respect to the points of determination, the SCC Court has relied upon the evidence led by the plaintiff and the findings are sustainable based on such evidence without reference to the written statement of the revisionist-defendant. Stray observation at one place of the judgement cannot be used by the revisionist to its advantage in the facts of this case. 18. The relationship of landlord and tenant has been proved by the PW-1 and the same has also been proved on the basis of evidence in the form of certified copy of the plaint file by the plaintiff relating to Original Suit No. 2629 of 2014 filed by Mr. Aveg Mehrotra in his capacity as Director of the revisionist-defendant wherein the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was admitted as also the rate of rent i.e., Rs.3, 77, 000/- per month was admitted and this fact could not be belied by the revisionist before the SCC Court. 19. As regards the validity of notice, learned counsel for the revisionist could not point out any illegality therein so far as its service is concerned. The same has amply been proved on the basis of documentary evidence in the form of track consignment document of the post office and testimony of PW-1. In this regard also the contention that the written statement was relied upon is found to be factually incorrect. 20. As regards default in arrears of rent, the same has also been proved on the basis of the evidence adduced by the plaintiff. This contention is, therefore, rejected. 21. In this regard also the contention that the written statement was relied upon is found to be factually incorrect. 20. As regards default in arrears of rent, the same has also been proved on the basis of the evidence adduced by the plaintiff. This contention is, therefore, rejected. 21. As already noticed here in above, a clear finding has been recorded as regards validity of the legal notice dated 06.11.2018 and its service upon the revisionist-defendant. It does not suffer from any error. 22. So far as Tax Deduction at Source and security amount is concerned, counsel for the respondent-plaintiff has very fairly conceded as already noticed here in above, but, so far as price of jewelry allegedly payable by the respondent-plaintiff to the revisionist-defendant, there is no such pleading nor any evidence on record, therefore, this cannot be taken into consideration. 23. In view of the above, Tax Deducted at Source as already mentioned here in above as also the admitted security amount will have to be deducted from the amount determined by the SCC Court as payable by the revisionist-defendant to the respondent-plaintiff. 24. As regards contention that the lease-deed being unregistered and it being for a period of nine years, the same could not be read not even for collateral purposes, the Court finds that the SCC Court has dealt with this aspect of the matter in the correct perspective. Relying upon various Supreme Court decisions it has been held that even unregistered lease-deed can be read for considering the nature of possession and other collateral purposes. It can be read for determining the relationship of the parties to the suit whether they were tenant and landlord, but, the same cannot be read to determine the terms of tenancy. This is the correct legal position and the SCC Court has not at all erred in this regard, therefore, this contention is also liable to be rejected and is rejected. 25. Lastly, the contention of Mr. Khan that the SCC Court has not determined the rate of rent but has decreed the suit for arrears of rent, the same is factually incorrect. 25. Lastly, the contention of Mr. Khan that the SCC Court has not determined the rate of rent but has decreed the suit for arrears of rent, the same is factually incorrect. The SCC Court has determined the rate of rent as Rs.3, 77, 000/- per month and a categorical finding in this regard has been recorded relying upon the evidence led by the plaintiff and the admission of the revisionist-defendant in the plaint of the earlier suit already referred here in above. This contention is also rejected. 26. In view of above discussion, the only modification in the judgement and order of the SCC Court which is required is for deduction of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) amounting to Rs.10, 27, 026/- from the due amount payable by the revisionist-defendant to the respondent--plaintiff as already discussed, as also, the deduction of security amount deposited by the revisionist with the plaintiff to the tune of Rs. 11, 31, 000/- as informed by the respondent-plaintiff's counsel himself, therefore, these amounts will have to be deducted from the due amount. Subject to above the judgement of SCC Court does not suffer from any error. 27. Thus, out of arrears of rent of Rs.1, 18, 92, 000/-, an amount of Rs.45, 30, 526/- [23, 72, 500 (Deposited under Order XV Rule 5 CPC) + 1027026 (TDS) + 1131000 (Security Deposit) will have to be deducted thereby leaving only Rs.73, 61, 474/- as payable by the revisionist-defendant as arrears of rent to the respondent-plaintiff. The other amounts payable under the SCC Court's judgement shall remain as it is. 28. The SCC Court judgement dated 25.08.2021 is modified, but, only as aforesaid. 29. The revision is allowed in part.