Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—This revision at the instance of defendant-revisionist K.K. Kamani under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1887”) has arisen from judgment and decree dated 8th August, 2002 passed by Sri Gopal Krishna Chaturvedi, Additional District Judge, Court No. 8, Kanpur Nagar in Small Cause Suit No. 11 of 1998 (Harish Kumar and others v. K.K. Kamani). Trial Court has decreed the suit for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs. 1,08,000/-, damages of Rs. 30,200/- and mesne profit @ Rs. 3,000/- per month for the period suit remained pending till actual delivery of possession, with further direction to hand over vacant possession of disputed premises to plaintiff-respondents.

2. Dispute relates to house No. 117/580 (new No. 117/H-1/149), Pandu Nagar, Kanpur. Defendant-revisionist, was let out a part of the aforesaid house on ground floor comprising of a drawing room, three bedrooms, two kitchens, two latrines and bathroom.

3. Plaintiff-respondents instituted SCC Suit No. 11 of 1998 stating that aforesaid premises was let out to defendant-revisionist tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 3,000/-. An agreement dated 9.9.1988 was executed wherein parties agreed for enhancement of rent by 15% after expiry of every two years without any further or fresh agreement. Defendant revisionist fell into arrears of rent since 1.8.1988. A composite notice of demand and termination of tenancy was given by landlord which was served upon defendant on 3.4.1997. Neither notice was complied nor premises in question was vacated. Premises in dispute was exempted from U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter to referred as “Act, 1972”) since monthly rent was more than Rs. 2,000/-. There was also arrears towards electricity charges to the tune of Rs. 37, 897.50, hence the suit.

4. Defendant-revisionist contested the suit by filing written statement wherein it was not disputed that plaintiff is owner and landlord of disputed premises. It was, however, said that defendant is tenant of entire ground floor which included lawn, portico etc. besides accommodation mentioned in para 2 of plaint. It was let out on a monthly rent of Rs. 750/-, besides electricity, water supply charges and drainage taxes. Total rent payable by defendant, thus, was Rs. 1,500/- per month which included electricity, water supply charges and drainage taxes. No agreement was executed by defendant agreeing to enhance rent by 15% after every two years and said document, if any, has been fabricated by landlord. No rent is due from 1.8.1988. The rent has throughout been paid from the date of commencement of tenancy i.e. 1.8.1988. However, plaintiff never issued rent receipt to defendant though he always requested for the same. Defendant sent two registered letters dated 30.8.1994 and 21.3.1996 but both were returned with postal remark Þysus ls budkjÞ (refused). Plaintiffs admitted before Income Tax Authorities of having received rent from defendant in cash. Statement of Ramesh Kumar Arora was recorded before Income Tax Officer in November, 1991. Plaintiffs said that they shall open bank account for rent purposes in April, 1997 and receive rent by cheque but they did not do so and instead, created trouble to tenant and did not accept rent, peacefully tendered to them, between April, 1997 to July, 1997. Since 4.4.1997 plaintiffs had illegally stopped water supply and disconnected electricity. Rent of two or three months was remitted by defendant to plaintiffs by money order at the correct address in the name of Harish Kumar and Ramesh Kumar, but was returned with postal remark Þysus ls budkjÞ (refused). Rate of rent is only Rs. 750/- per month and premises is well within ambit of Act No. 13 of 1972. Defendant is not liable to pay any damages. When plaintiff disconnected electricity connection, defendant applied for fresh connection which was sanctioned and meter was installed on 9.5.1997. Similarly, a new water connection was