Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.

2. This Revision under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1887”) has arisen from judgment and order dated 4.11.2008 passed by Sri P.K. Jain, Special Judge (E.C. Act), Kanpur Nagar dismissing Small Causes Suit No. 44 of 2005 instituted by revisionist-landlord for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent in respect to disputed premises which is a shop. The shop was let out to defendant-respondent allegedly on a monthly rent of Rs. 4000/- per month, but it is submitted that despite repeated demand, rent has not been paid since February’ 2003. It is further submitted that property in dispute was let out to defendant-respondent for a period of eleven months only which expired on 4.2.2003 and since period of lease has not been extended, therefore, the tenant is liable to be evicted.

3. Court below formulated five issues as under:

^^1- D;k oknxzLr lEifRr ij m0iz0 vf/kfu;e la[;k 13 lu~ 1972 ds izko/kku ykxw gksrs gSa] tSlk fd izfroknh us vfHkdfFkr fd;k gS\

2- D;k oknxzLr nqdku edku la[;k 88@384] gqek;awckx] dkuiqj uxj ikVZ AA dk Hkkx gS] tSlk fd okfnuh us vfHkdfFkr fd;k gS vFkok ;g nqdku edku la[;k 88@384] gqek;awckx] dkuiqj uxj esa fLFkr gS] tSlk fd izfroknh dgrk gS vkSj D;k edku uEcj ds bl vUrj dk oknxzLr nqdku dh f'kuk[r ij dksbZ izHkko gS vFkok ugha\

3- D;k izfroknh dh fdjk;snkjh fnukad 5-2-2002 ls izkjEHk gqbZ vkSj bl ckcr i{kdkjksa ds e/; dksbZ fyf[kr vuqcU/k fu”ikfnr gqvk vkSj oknxzLr nqdku dk fdjk;k 4000@& :i;s izfrekg r; gqvk vFkok fookfnr nqdku esa izfroknh o”kZ 1993 ls 500@& :i;s izfrekg dh nj ls fdjk;snkj vkckn pyk vkrk gSA

4- D;k izfroknh us fdjk;k vnk;xh esa dksbZ pwd dh vkSj D;k mldh fdjk;snkjh uksfVl fnukafdr 17-3-2005 }kjk lekIr dh tk pqdh gSA

5- okfnuh fdl vuqrks"k dks ikus dh vfèkdkfj.kh gS\**

“1. Whether the provisions of the UP Act 13 of 1972, as averred by the defendant, is applicable to the property in litigation?

2. Whether the shop in litigation is a part of house no 88/384, Humayun Baag, Kanpur Nagar, Part II as averred by the lady plaintiff, or the shop is situated in house no 88/384, Humayun Baag, Kanpur Nagar as averred by the defendant and whether this difference in the house numbered above put any effect on the identification of the disputed shop or not?

3. Whether tenancy of the defendant commenced since 5.2.2002 and any written contract in this regard was executed between the parties fixing the rent of the shop in litigation as Rs 4000/- per month or whether the defendant has been a tenant being in possession over the disputed shop since 1993 @ 500/- per month.

4. Whether the defendant has defaulted in payment of the rent and whether his tenancy has been terminated vide notice dated 17.3.2005?

5. What relief the plaintiff is entitled to get?” (English Translation by Court)

4. While answering Issue 1, Court below has said that premises in question is not governed by provisions of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1972”) since the shop in question was constructed on and after 1991. Issue 2 has been answered observing that premises in question is identifiable. Coming to substantial Issue 3, Court below has found that alleged agreement was not proved though it was disputed by defendant and therefore onus lay upon plaintiff to prove the said document which has not been discharged. Further, plaintiff also failed to prove any default in payment of rent, and, in fact, Court below found that monthly rent was only Rs. 500/- per month and not Rs. 4000/- per month and document allegedly executed on 5.2.2002 was a forged document. Issue 3 was answered accordingly. Issue 4 then has also been answered in favour of defendant holding that there was no default and in these facts and circumstances, suit has been dismissed.

5. Counsel for revisionist at this stage contended that res