JUDGMENT : The present revision has been filed by the revisionist against the impugned judgment and order dated 25.07.2023 passed by SCC Judge/1st Additional District Judge, Haridwar in S.C.C. Suit No. 06 of 2018 ‘Ramji Krishna Sharma vs. Sonika Aggarwal’, whereby the court below has allowed the said suit by directing the revisionist to handover the vacant peaceful possession to the respondent/plaintiff within a period of 30 days. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record available on file. 3. Counsel for the revisionist/defendant no. 1 tenant would submit that S.C.C. Suit No. 06 of 2018 was filed before Small Causes Court, Haridwar by the respondent no. 1/landlord on the grounds of termination of tenancy for non-payment of rent and inducting the sub-tenant i.e. respondent no. 2/defendant no. 2 from the property in question. He would further submit that four issues were framed by the trial court which read as follows:- i. As to whether the revisionist/defendant no. 1/tenant is inducted as tenant in the property stated in the schedule at the bottom of the plaint at the rent of Rs. 2928/- per month. ii. As to whether the suit is barred under the provisions of U.P. Rent Control Act, 1972. iii. As to whether the tenancy of the revisionist/defendant no. 1/tenant was terminated by the notice dated 12.02.2018. iv. As to whether the respondent no. 1/plaintiff is entitled to any relief in the Small Causes Court. 4. Counsel for the revisionist/defendant no. 1 tenant would submit that the evidence was adduced by the respective parties except that the respondent no. 2/defendant no. 2 neither file written statement nor adduced any evidence whatsoever. Counsel for the revisionist/defendant no. 1 tenant would submit that it is an admitted fact that after receipt of the notice, the revisionist/defendant no. 1 tenant paid all the arrears of rent as claimed by the respondent no. 1/plaintiff landlord in his notice dated 12.02.2018 and this fact is stated in the plaint also; that, though, in the rent agreement was for two shops i.e. Shop No. 6 & Shop No. 7, but one Rent Agreement was executed; that, the rent of the tenanted premises of two shops is stated in Rent Agreement of Rs. 1/plaintiff landlord in his notice dated 12.02.2018 and this fact is stated in the plaint also; that, though, in the rent agreement was for two shops i.e. Shop No. 6 & Shop No. 7, but one Rent Agreement was executed; that, the rent of the tenanted premises of two shops is stated in Rent Agreement of Rs. 2000/- per month with additional clause that on expiry of three years of the tenancy, the rent can be enhanced @ 10%; that, but in reality, the two tenancy in respect of Shop No. 6 and Shop No. 7 were created though single Rent Agreement was executed; that, as tenancy of two shops i.e. the shop no.6 and shop no.7 were created by single Rent Agreement, therefore, the rent of Rs. 2,928/- shall be for two shops i.e. Rs. 1,464/- for each, hence the suit was barred by the provisions of U.P. Rent Control Act, 1972. He would further submit that respondent no. 1/plaintiff landlord could not prove the fact of sub-tenancy of respondent no. 2/defendant no. 2. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist/defendant no. 1 tenant drew attention of the Court to the rent agreement (Page no. 55 of the revision) and would submit that in the schedule of tenanted premises (Page No. 56 at bottom of the agreement) it is clearly stated that in the description of the tenanted premises Shop No. 6 and Shop No. 7 are situated at Ramji Krishna Bhawan Mansha Devi Ropeway Marg Upper Road, Haridwar. He would further submit that in the Clause-1 of the said rent agreement, it is stated that the security amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four lacs) was paid by way of two Drafts of Rs. 2,00,000/- each (Rupees Two lacs) both dated 07.10.2006, which gives inevitable inference that the tenancy of two shops i.e. Shop No. 6 and Shop No. 7 were created by single Rent Agreement. He would further submit that it is admitted by the respondent no. 1/plaintiff/landlord that the original tenancy was created in the year 1970 and there was no new constructions made in the year 2000, therefore, the Small Causes Court erred by giving wrong finding on the fact that Rent Act, 1972 did not apply as the construction of the said two shops was new. However, the counsel for the revisionist/defendant no. 1/plaintiff/landlord that the original tenancy was created in the year 1970 and there was no new constructions made in the year 2000, therefore, the Small Causes Court erred by giving wrong finding on the fact that Rent Act, 1972 did not apply as the construction of the said two shops was new. However, the counsel for the revisionist/defendant no. 1 tenant would admit the fact that the Notice dated 12.02.2018 clearly stipulated the fact that the tenancy of the revisionist/defendant no. 1/tenant was terminated on the expiry of 30 days from the date of receipt of the Notice. He fairly admitted at Bar that if the suit is not held to be barred by the provisions of the U.P. Rent Control Act, 1972 then the termination of the tenancy had attained the finality on the receipt of Notice and would not have created any statutory tenancy in favour of the revisionist/defendant no. 1/tenant. 6. Counsel for the respondent no. 1/plaintiff landlord would submit that the submissions of the counsel for the revisionist/defendant no. 1 tenant are misconceived as the Rent Agreement (Annexure No. 5, Page No. 54 to 56 of the revision) specifically states in Clause 10 that:- ^^10- ;g fd mDr nksuksa nqdkuksa uacj 6 o 7 uofufeZr gS rFkk mu ij m-iz- jsUV dUVªksy ,DV ykxw ugha gksrk gSA** (That both the Shop No. 6 and Shop No. 7 are new construction and the U.P. Rent Control Act does not apply on the same.) He would further submit that as this Rent Agreement is being relied upon by the counsel for the revisionist/defendant no. 1 tenant, therefore, it is an admitted document, therefore, this clause binds him up to the hilt i.e. U.P. Rent Control Act, 1972 does not apply on the present tenanted premises, therefore, the finding of the Small Cause Court is correct and as per law, hence, revision is liable to be dismissed in limine. 7. In the light of the submissions of the counsel for the respective parties, this Court perused all the documents filed with the memo of revision, impugned judgment and grounds of appeal. 8. Perusal of the rent agreement clearly shows in the description of the tenanted premises that there is no mention that two tenancies are being created on the basis of single Rent Agreement. Merely giving two drafts of Rs. 2,00,000/- each for security of Rs. 8. Perusal of the rent agreement clearly shows in the description of the tenanted premises that there is no mention that two tenancies are being created on the basis of single Rent Agreement. Merely giving two drafts of Rs. 2,00,000/- each for security of Rs. 4,00,000/- for tenancy does not make it for two separate tenancy. There was no reason, exigency, no occasion and no compulsion on the parties to execute one Rent Agreement for two tenancy. If for the sake of argument if it is presumed that two tenancies were created for Shop No. 6 and Shop No. 7 by single Rent Agreement then this could have been categorically and specifically stated in very unambiguous words in separate clause of this Rent Agreement. As there is no such Clause, therefore, the same leads to the only conclusion that it was single tenancy for the Shop Nos. 6 & 7 for the rent of Rs. 2000/- per month with a clause of enhancement of rent @ 10% on expiry of three years. Therefore, this, consequently, takes the suit out from the reach of mischief of U.P. Rent Control Act, 1972. Secondly, there is specific Clause 10 in the Rent Agreement an admitted document to the present revisionist/defendant no. 1 tenant that the construction of Shop Nos. 6 & 7 is new and the U.P. Rent Control Act, 1972 consequently, would not apply. 9. This Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order/judgment dated 25.07.2023 in SCC Suit No. 06 of 2018 on any reasonable and plausible ground. 10. In light of the above, this Court is of the view that there is no reason to make any interference in the impugned judgment and order. The revision deserves to be dismissed at the admission stage. 11. Accordingly, the revision is hereby dismissed in limine. 12. The copy of the judgment be provided to the counsel for the respective parties as per Rules within two days.