NAVEEN KUMAR Vs. MUKESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision has been filed under Sec. 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 by the defendants (for short 'the tenants') of SCC Suit No. 5/2008 challenging judgment and decree dated 27.11.2010 passed by Judge Small Cause decreeing the suit of the plaintiffrespondent (for short 'landlord') for recovery of arrears of rent and for eviction. The trial Court had granted three months' time to the tenants to vacate the demised premises. It has also passed a decree for recovery of arrears of rent since 1.12.2005 till date of delivery of possession @ Rs. 700.00 per month and has awarded cost of Rs. 150.00 towards expense of notice.

(2.) The trial Court has held that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable to the demised premises; that the tenancy was terminated by means of a valid notice under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 duly served upon the tenants; that the determination of tenancy not being under Sec. 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act, the provisions of Sec. 114 thereof would not apply; that rate of rent was Rs. 700.00 per month and not Rs. 1000.00 as claimed by the landlord.

(3.) The sole submission of learned counsel for the revisionist-tenants is that the notice by which tenancy was terminated demanded rent @ Rs. 1000.00 per month, although the trial Court has found that rate of rent was Rs. 700.00 per month, and thus, according to him, notice demanding rent at a higher rate would be illegal. In other words, the submission is that the suit founded on such a notice could not have been decreed. He further submitted that the tenants have given a security of Rs. 25,000.00 at the time they entered into tenancy, but the said amount had not been adjusted.