Hon’ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.—Heard Sri V.D.Ojha, learned counsel for the defendant-revisionist and Sri V.K. Agrawal holding brief of Sri Anshul Kumar Singhal, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent.

2. This revision has been filed challenging the judgement and order dated 8.10.2015 passed by the Court of Small Causes (Court No. 5), Hathras in SCC Case No. 11 of 2006 (Madan Mohan Sharma v. Sudhir Agarwal).

3. Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that the plaintiff-respondent sent a notice dated 8.6.2005 followed by another notice dated 9.6.2005 to the defendant-revisionist due to non payment of rent and asked him to vacate the premises in question. Undisputedly, the defendant-revisionist is a tenant in the disputed property which is a Dharamshala. He has neither paid rent to any person after receipt of the aforesaid notice nor has deposited the rent in the Court. He raised the dispute with regard to title of the plaintiff-respondent and alleged that one Sri Radha Raman is the owner of the disputed property, who and the plaintiff-respondent are the grand sons of one Sri Net Ram, who owned the disputed property.

4. It appears that Paper No. 49-C was fi