Hon’ble Prakash Krishna, J.—These two revisions preferred under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment as was jointly prayed by the learned counsel for the parties. They have stated at Bar that the controversy involved in the aforestated two revisions is identical. Relevant record of revision No. 341 of 2008 were referred during the course of arguments and as such the facts from the said revision are noticed herein.

2. Whether the tenanted building is exempt from operation of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction )Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as Act No. 13 of 1972) in view of Section 2 (1) (bb) of the Act and whether the trial Court was justified in granting the pendente lite and future damages at higher rate than the agreed rate of rent, are the questions involved in these revisions.

3. SCC suit No. 18 of 2003 was instituted by Sri Parasnath Digamber Jain Mandir and Dharmshala through its Committee of Management and principal trustees and other trustees being plaintiff Nos. 1 to 5 against the present applicants who are four in numbers on the allegations that Shri Parasnathji Maharaj Virajman Digamber Jain Mandir is the owner of the property No. 6/93, Kachora Bazar, Belanganj, Agra and also the property No. 20/110 situate at Yamuna bank, Agra. The said Mandir and Dharmshala have been in existence since long and are interconnected with each other internally. The opening of property No. 6/93 is towards Belanganj, Agra. While the opening of property No. 20/110 is towards the Yamuna Bank. The said Mandir and Dharmshala are popularly known as Khandelwal Digambar Jain Dharmshala. The plaintiff Nos. 2 to 5 are running and managing the said property belonging to the temple and Dharmshala being trustees. The properties have been dedicated for public religious and charitable purposes. The public has a right to have Darshan in the temple and the Dharmshala is being used for the benefit of public at large. It was stated that in view of Section 2(1)(bb) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 the property in dispute is exempt from the operation of the said Act. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are tenants of the part of property No. 6/93 measuring 3500 Sq. Ft. on a monthly rent of Rs. 600/- in addition to water tax and sewerage tax at the rate of 16 per cent per annum, under a rent note. The property was let out to the defendant No. 1 through defendant No. 2 in whose names rent receipts were issued but now, the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are claiming themselves as tenants of the property on the allegations that they are the partners of the defendant No. 1, although no such document even on demand, was shown to the plaintiffs. The defendants are in arrears of rent since November 1, 1996. The tenancy has been terminated by means of a notice. The defendants have unauthorizedly made material alterations and structural changes, without permission of the landlords in tenanted building and thus, damaged the temple’s roof. The particulars of alterations made by the defendants have been detailed in the plaint.

4. The suit was contested on the pleas inter alia that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable as the plaintiff is not entitled to claim exemption under the aforesaid Section 2(1) (bb). It is neither a public religious nor a charitable institution. The other allegations with regard to the material alterations etc. were also disputed and denied. But the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was not disputed.

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

6. The trial Court framed six points for determination in the suit. It, after consideration of the evidence led by the parties, has decreed the suit principally on the findings recorded by it under issue No. 1. It has been held that the disputed property belongs to the temple and Dharmshala which are public religious and