Hon’ble Shashi Kant Gupta, J.—This civil revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act has been filed against the judgment and order dated 31.3.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 5, Varanasi in SCC No. 55 of 2010, Kunwar Bahadur Singh v. U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and another, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff-revisionist for arrears of rent and ejectment has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows;

Plaintiff-revisionist filed a SCC Suit No. 55 of 2010 for arrears of rent & ejectment of the defendant-respondents from the premises in question, claiming arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per month from 1.8.2009 to 30.5.2010 to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- as well as damages along with interest pendente lite for use and occupation of the disputed premises from 1.6.2010 till the delivery of the possession. The said suit was filed after the issuance of notice under Section 106 Transfer of Property Act whereby the tenancy was terminated. The receipt of the said notice has not been denied by the defendant-respondents. Pleadings were exchanged between the parties and evidences were adduced. It is pertinent to note that earlier in the year 2003 a small cause suit No. 3 of 2003 was filed by the plaintiff-revisionist against the defendant-respondents and the said suit was decreed on 19.11.2003 following which an execution proceeding was filed by the plaintiff-revisionist. It appears that the parties thereafter entered into an agreement whereby the defendant-respondents were allowed to continue its tenancy on month to month basis. It was provided in the said agreement that the tenant in question may be allowed to continue his tenancy after the expiry of five years subject to the enhancement of rent by 25% provided there was cordial relationship between the parties. It is not disputed that no further/fresh agreement was executed between the parties after the expiry of five years as provided in the agreement dated 22.7.2004. The trial Court after hearing the parties and perusing the record dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff-revisionist. Hence the present revision.

3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-revisionist submitted that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Court below is patently illegal, perverse and the same has been passed in a most superficial and casual manner, as such, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is further submitted that admittedly the rent of the premises in dispute was payable at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per month (above Rs. 2000/- per month), therefore, the provisions of The Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (UP Act No. 13 of 1972) (In short “the Act”) was not applicable in the matter and the petitioner was not entitled to any benefit as provided under Section 20 (4) and Section 30 of the Act. It is further submitted that the receipt of notice under Section 106 Transfer of Property Act whereby the tenancy of the defendant-respondents was terminated is not disputed, and after the termination of tenancy the tenant became an unauthorized occupant/Trespasser. It was further submitted that the parties were not having cordial relationship. When the defendant-respondents committed default in the payment of rent, the plaintiff-revisionist terminated the tenancy by issuing a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. It is further submitted that the suit has been dismissed mainly on the ground that parties were having cordial relationships, therefore, the suit was not maintainable.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the defendant-respondents has supported the impugned order passed by the Court below and submitted that the defendant-respondents was not a defaulter in payment of rent and further laid great emphasis on the agreement dated 22.7.2004 allegedly executed between the parties.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused t