Hon’ble Sudhir Kumar Saxena, J.—Tenant-revisionist has approached this Court for the third time, challenging the judgment and decree dated 9.2.2012 passed by Judge, Small Cause Court/Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Rae Bareli decreeing S.C.C. Suit No. 03/2006, for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment from shop.

2. Civil revision No. 7 of 2012 was filed challenging the order dated 22.11.2011 passed by Judge, small cause Courts rejecting application under Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. This revision was dismissed as infructuous on the statement of counsel for the revisionist on 20.1.2014.

3. Another revision No. 43 of 2009 challenging the order refusing to re-examine a witness filed by the revisionist, was also dismissed for non-prosecution.

4. Heard Sri Mohammad Ibrahim Abid-revisionist (in person), Sri Zainul Aabdin, counsel for the remaining revisionists, Sri Bireshwar Nath and Sri R.K. Sharma, counsels for the opposite parties.

5. Briefly stated relevant facts are that Sri Sameer Om and Sri Hari Om filed suit for ejectment of Sri Abid Hussain from the shop, which was let out to him @ Rs. 330/- per month (Rs. 300/- as rent and Rs. 30/- as local taxes). Since defendant did not pay rent from the month of July 1983 despite demand, tenancy was terminated vide notice dated 5.12.2005. Despite service, neither defendant paid the rent and taxes nor he vacated the shop, hence, the suit. It was also stated in the plaint that in reply to the notice sent by plaintiff, tenant said that he had already paid Rs. 50,000/- at the time of commencement of tenancy from which tax and rent would continue to be adjusted automatically and after adjustment of the above amount, landlord would intimate the tenant. Defendant admitted only Rs. 39,100/-, regarding which a cheque was sent but no cheque was received. In all, plaintiffs claimed a sum of Rs. 98,597/- as arrears of rent etc.

6. (a) Defendant in his written statement has admitted that he was tenant of the shop and he admitted rate of rent, as well. It was stated that he has paid rent till December 2005 on 3.12.2005. In para 5 of the written statement, it was stated that all the taxes including rent have been paid up to 10.12.2006 as up to December 2005 paid by cash to plaintiff No. 2, thereafter in Court. Moreover, rent beyond the period of three years cannot be claimed as the same has become time barred. It was pleaded that “the answering defendant is still lawful tenant and has continuously been paying the rent and legally occupying the shop in question since 1983 @ Rs. 3,307/- as rent which includes tax also but plaintiff No. 2, who is a Senior Advocate of the Bar has not issued rent receipts.”

(b) Family settlement between the two plaintiffs pleaded in the plaint was also challenged. Para 12 of the written statement is relevant for appreciating the argument of tenant that will be considered later and the same is being reproduced below :

“12. That the answering defendant has properly replied the notice well within time by denying the contents of notice on 4.1.2006 vide postal receipt No. RLA-3595 dated 05-01-2006 which would have been served upon the plaintiff as not returned back as yet wherein the answering defendant has specifically mentioned about the oral contract between the parties for the sale/purchase of the shop for Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand) and in compliance thereof defendant’s son has issued a cheque No. C/A No. 008327 for Rs. 39,100/-(thirty nine thousand one hundred) dated 4.1.2006 of District Co-operative Bank Ltd. Rae Bareli given by the son of defendant personally to the plaintiff No. 2 in the Bar Association thereafter when the plaintiff No. 2 backed out and became adamant not to sell the shop the payment of the cheque was stopped as such could not be encashed.”

7. In para 14, it was stated that rent up to December 2005 was paid by cash but no receipt was issued by either of the plaintiffs and rent for the period from January 20