Hon’ble Prakash Krishna, J.—The present revision is at the instance of a defendant of J.S.C.C. Suit No. 7 of 1981 and is directed against the judgment and order dated 11th of January, 1991 passed by the IXth Additional District Judge, Meerut whereby the said suit for ejectment of the defendant who is applicant herein from the three shops has been decreed. The decree for recovery of Rs.13,600/- as arrears of rent for the period 23.1.1978 to 22.11.1980 and for mesne profit has also been passed. The claim for pendente lite and future mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month has also been decreed subject to the payment of Court fees on the execution side.

2. The aforestated suit was instituted by four plaintiffs for ejectment of the defendant applicant from three shops situate in the property No.194, Delhi Road, Meerut on the allegations that the defendant is a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 400/- and is in arrears of rent from 1st of December, 1975 and has failed to pay the rent in spite of repeated demands, whose tenancy has been determined by a notice served on him on 23.10.1980. The plea of subletting of the shop was also raised. During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff No. 1 Smt. Kiran Wati expired and was substituted by her heirs and legal representatives. The plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 transferred their shares in the property to the plaintiffs No. 5 and 6 who were added subsequently by the order dated 9th of January, 1987.

3. The suit was contested by filing written statement with the plea that the rate of rent was Rs. 250/- per month and the defendant was not defaulter in payment of rent. The payment of rent made by the defendant is duly entered in his accounts book maintained by him in the ordinary course of business. Moreover, on the date of service of the notice, the defendant was not in any arrears of rent and as such the suit is not maintainable.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :

(1) Whether the defendant committed default in the payment of rent? If so, its effect.

(2) Whether the rate of rent of the premises in question was Rs. 400/- per month or Rs. 250/- per month?

(3) Whether the defendant has paid rent up to 31.12.1981 as alleged by him?

(4) Whether the defendant has sublet any portion of the premises in question as alleged in the plaint?

(5) To what amount and relief, is the plaintiff entitled?

5. The parties led evidence in support of their respective cases.

6. It was found under issue No. 1 that the defendant tenant has committed default and was in arrears of rent on the date of the notice as pleaded by the plaintiffs. Under issue No. 2 with regard to the rate of rent the Court below preferred to believe the case of the plaintiffs that the rate of rent of the premises in question was Rs. 400/- per month.

7. So far as issue No. 3 is concerned, it has been found in paragraph 16 of the judgment that the defendant has failed to prove the payment of rent for the period for which rent has been claimed and has committed default in payment of rent and is in arrears of rent from 23.1.1978.

8. The issue No. 4 regarding the subletting was not pressed and was decided against the plaintiffs.

9. Under issue No. 5 as noticed herein above decree for eviction, recovery of arrears of rent, damages for the use and occupation etc. was passed.

10. Heard Shri Pramod Jain, the learned counsel for the applicant in support of the revision on behalf of the tenant and Shri Muralidhar, learned senior counsel in opposition.

11. Shri Pramod Jain, learned counsel for the applicant tenant has urged the following two points in support of the revision :

(1) During the pendency of the revision, he submits, certain new developments have taken place. The parties have entered into a compromise on 21st of March, 2007 under which out of total tenanted area of 255 Sq.Fts. under the tenancy of the applicant, the applicant has vacated 166 Sq. Fts. He was permitted to retain the shop mea