Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Vinod Swarup, Advocate, for revisionist and Sri Manish Goyal, Advocate, for respondents.

2. This is defendant’s revision filed under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as (“Act, 1887”). It has arisen against the judgment dated 7.9.2000 passed by Sri V.R. Mishra, 18th Additional District Judge, Meerut decreeing S.C.C. Suit No. 13 of 1995. The plaintiffs-respondents instituted the aforesaid suit for possession and ejectment of defendant from disputed property.

3. The suit was filed by Lokeshwar Prasad (now deceased and substituted by legal heirs) and his two sons, Anil Kumar Agarwal and Amit Kumar Agarwal. The plaint case set was that plaintiffs are owner of Jagat Cinema, Begum Pul, Meerut. Lokeshwar Prasad, plaintiff No. 1, let out the aforesaid Cinema on a monthly rent of Rs. 3500/-. The plaintiffs instituted S.C.C. Suit No. 25 of 1976 for arrears of rent and ejectment in the Court of District Judge, Meerut exercising jurisdiction as Judge, Small Causes Court. The suit was transferred to the Court of 4th Additional District Judge, Meerut who dismissed the suit so far as the relief of ejectment was prayed for but decreed the suit with regard to arrears of rent vide judgment dated 26.10.1983. Therein a finding was given by Court below that tenancy of defendant was month to month. The judgment has become final. Again the defendant committed default in payment of rent since 1.1.1983 inasmuch he has paid only Rs. 1,12,000/- as rent which tantamount to rent of 32 months and commencing from 1.1.1983, he fell in arrears from 1.9.1985. The provision of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1972”) are not applicable to the premises in dispute since rent is more than Rs. 2000/- per month. Defendant is in the habit of committing default. Plaintiffs decided not to continue him in tenancy and served a notice dated 31.3.1995 by registered post terminating his tenancy under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1882”). The defendant refused to accept notice on 6.4.1995, and, therefore, it tantamount to service in the eyes of law. The tenancy has come to an end on 5.5.1995. Since the rent upto 15.5.1992 is barred by limitation, therefore, prayer for arrears of rent is being confined only for the preceding three years, i.e., with effect from 16.5.1992 till 5.5.1995.

4. During the pendency of suit, plaintiff No. 1 died and his legal heirs were substituted.

5. The suit was contested by defendant by filing written statement denying all the allegations contained in the plaint and it was pleaded that defendant has paid the rent and there is no default. However, in fact, the defendant disputed the very right of ownership of plaintiffs and claimed that plaintiffs are not owner of disputed property known as Jagat Cinema. It is admitted that Late Lokeshwar Prasad and Late Jagdishwar Prasad Agarwal let out a building known as Jagat Cinema as detailed at the bottom of plaint. However, it is said that plaintiffs no more remain owner and landlord of building, hence, the question of making payment of rent after execution of agreement dated 16.3.1988 does not arise. The filing of Suit No. 25 1976 is denied. It is, however, admitted that Sri Jagdishwar Prasad died on 1.6.1992. The contention that defendant is in arrears of rent is also denied. Service of notice is also denied. In the additional pleas, it was contended that after dismissal of Suit No. 25 of 1976, Lokeshwar Prasad and Jagdishwar Prasad filed Revision before this Court. During its pendency, defendant-company was depositing rent and the last deposition of rent was made on 2.3.1998. Thereafter, the two plaintiffs Jagadishwar Prasad and Lokeshwar Prasad in Suit No. 25 of 1976 agreed to transfer the property for a consideration of Rs. 14,50,000/-. An agreement was reduced in writing between defendant-co