Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Manish Goyal, Advocate assisted by Sri Archit Mehrotra, learned counsel for revisionists and Sri Kshitij Shailendra, Advocate for respondents.

2. This civil revision has arisen from the judgment dated 21.2.2013 passed by Small Cause Court, Hathras in SCC Suit No. 09 of 1997. The plaintiff-respondent instituted small cause suit for a decree of ejectment against defendants-revisionists and recovery of Rs. 30,590/- (arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation) alongwith pendente lite and future damages at the rate of Rs. 1092.50 per month.

3. The dispute relates to a shop at ground floor in the building in dispute situated at Hospital Road/Tehsil Road, Sikandra Rao, District Aligarh. The plaintiff, Ram Murti Devi pleaded that monthly rent of shop was Rs. 950/- besides municipal taxes at the rate of 15% per month. The defendants-tenants committed default by not paying rent from 1.1.1995 despite repeated request and demand and also let out/sub let a portion of shop in question without consent of plaintiff-landlord to one Mohd. Ajaz son of Mohd. Zafar and realising Rs. 50/- per day as rent from him and, therefore, is guilty of sub-letting also. In substance the ejectment of tenant sought by plaintiff on the ground of default in payment of rent and sub-letting, i.e., the grounds available under Section 20(2)(a) and (e) of U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1972”).

4. The defendants contested the suit alleging that rate of rent is Rs. 710/- per month excluding house tax and water tax, which they (tenants) are regularly depositing with concerned department and neither there is any default in payment of rent nor the shop has been sub-let to anyone. The Court below formulated five issues and for the purpose of present revision the issues No. 2, 3 and 4 are relevant, hence reproduced as under:

^^2&Dk iz’uxr nqdku dk fdjk;k 950@& :i;s izfrekg gS tSlk fd okfnuh dk dsl gS vFkok fdjk;s dh nj 710@& :0 ekfld gS tSlk fd izfroknhx.k dk dsl gS rFkk D;k izfroknhx.k us fdjk;k o VSDl vnk djus esa dksbZ pwd dh gS] ;fn gksa rks mldk izHkko\

3& D;k izfroknh /kkjk 20 ¼4½ m0iz0 vf/kfu;e 13@72 dk ykHk ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\

4& D;k izfroknhx.k us Jh ekSgEen ,tkt dks tSyh fdjk;snkj ds :i esa iz’uxr nqdku esa eq0 50@& :i;s izfrfnu ;k vU; fdlh /kujkf’k ds vk/kkj ij fdjk;snkj j[k fy;k gS ;fn gksa rks izHkko\^^

“2. Whether rent for the shop in question is Rs. 950/- per mensem as claimed by plaintiff or Rs. 710/- per mensem as claimed by defendants and whether defendants have defaulted in payment of rent and taxes. If so, its effect?

3. Whether defendant is entitled to get the benefit of Section 20(4), UP Act 13 of 1972?

4. Whether defendants have kept Shri Mohammed Ezaz as a sub-tenant at the shop in question for Rs. 50 per day or for consideration of some other amount. If so, its effect?” (English translation by the Court)

5. While considering issues No. 2 and 3 the Court below recorded a finding in respect of rate of rent that it is Rs. 950/- per month excluding water tax and house tax. Having said so it has further held that benefit of Section 20(4) is not available to tenants for the reason that on the first hearing of suit the tenants have deposited the entire dues but calculating the rent at the rate of Rs. 710/- per month instead of Rs. 950/- per month, therefore, he had deposited rent short by Rs. 240/- per month, hence there is non-compliance of Section 20(4) and benefit thereof is not available to tenants. In other words, while denying benefit of Section 20(4) to tenants-revisionists, the Court below has observed that it is an admitted case of tenants that they have deposited rent at the rate of Rs. 710/- per month on the first hearing of suit instead of Rs. 950/-.

6. Sri Manish Goyal, learned counsel appearing for revisionists drew my attention to page 74 of paper book, i.e., Annexure-3 to the affidavit accompanying stay