Hon’ble Sunil Ambwani, J.—Both these connected Civil Revisions under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1925, arise out of a judgment of the Addl. District Judge, Court No. 3, Agra dated 22.9.2006 in SCC Suit No. 17 of 2000 between Harbans Lal Dua v. State Bank of India, by which the suit was decreed for arrears of rent of Rs. 4,02,348.99 and mesne profit w.e.f. 22.5.2000 at the rate of Rs. 7,369/- per month, and for eviction with direction to defendant-tenant to hand over the possession of the disputed premises to the plaintiff within three months.

2. By an interim order dated 28.10.2006 the revisionist-bank was directed to deposit Rs. 7,60,000/- in the account of the respondent-landlord within one month. The decree of eviction was not stayed as the trial Court had granted time to the bank to vacate the premises upto 21.12.2006. By an interim order dated 15.1.2007 a direction was issued that till the next date the arrears of rent and mesne profit deposited by the bank in the account of the respondent-landlord shall not be withdrawn by the opposite party. Both the revisions were heard and the judgment was reserved.

3. Shri Navin Sinha, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Vipin Sinha appear for the revisionist-State Bank of India in Civil Revision No. 402 of 2006 and respondent in Civil Revision No. 420 of 2006. Shri B.D. Madhyan, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Satish Madhyan has appeared for Shri Harbans Lal Dua, the landlord.

4. According to the plaint allegations Shri Harbans Lal Dua, the plaintiff-landlord let out the ground floor of the premise No. 19/10-A/22, Jaipur House, Agra to the Bank for Rs. 1,400/- per month in the year 1977. On 2.1.1987 the landlord let out the first floor also for Rs. 4,125/- per month with an area measuring 1392 sq. ft. The landlord contended that a formula of increase of rent was agreed between the parties according to which the rent of the entire premises including the ground floor and the first floor was quantified at Rs. 8,842/- w.e.f. 1.12.1997. At that time the agreed rent was much less than the market rent of Rs. 20,000/- per month. He claimed Rs. 56,48,117/- as arrears of rent after adjusting the amount deposited by the bank in his account upto 30.4.2000. By a notice dated 22.5.2000 sent by registered post the tenancy was terminated and the suit was filed demanding Rs. 6,55,800/- as arrears of rent and mesne profits and a higher rent as mesne profit after the filing of the suit.

5. The defendant-bank admitted that the ground floor was taken on rent in the year 1977 at Rs. 1,400/-. The bank entered into tenancy of first floor on 1.3.1988 at an agreed rent of Rs. 3,208.83 and that w.e.f. 1.5.1995 the agreed rent for both ground floor and first floor was Rs. 6,108.57. The rent was deposited in the saving bank account No. 12261 of the plaintiff-landlord. The plaintiff operated this account. It was denied that the rent for the same area had increased to Rs. 20,000 per month. The bank denied that any formula was agreed between the parties to increase the rent. According to the bank it was agreed that after every five years the rent will be increased by 15% and that the rent had to increase w.e.f. 1.11.2002 by 15%. A reply was given to the notice. The bank further stated that according to the agreement the strong room and a toilet were not constructed and thus under the orders of the regional office the bank did not deposit Rs. 3,57,322.61. It is further stated that the loan amount of Rs. 1,02,600.15 is still to be paid by the plaintiff-landlord to the bank. The trial Court framed following six issues :

(1) Whether the plaintiff has terminated the tenancy of the defendant by notice?

(2) Whether the defendant entered into possession of the first floor after its construction on 2.1.1987 or on 1.3.1988?

(3) The arrears of rent due to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff by way of rent;

(4) Whether the rent was to increase after five years at the rate of 15% or at the rate of 20%?

(5