Hon’ble Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.—Heard Sri Adnan Ahmad, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Abdul Rasheed, learned counsel for opposite parties/defendants.

2. This Civil Revision has been filed against the judgement dated 29.10.2013 passed by the Court of Judge, Small Causes in S.C.C. Suit No. 26/2010, whereby the suit filed by the revisionist for eviction, arrears of rent and damages has been rejected by the Court below.

Factual Matrix

3. Briefly stated, relevant facts of the case are that the revisionist undisputedly is the owner of land and house in question which was allotted to him by U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad in the year 2002 under a sale-deed executed on 26.3.2002 and registered on 4.4.2002. The disputed house came to be occupied by the opposite party since the month of April, 2006 whereas, as per the version of opposite party, the house has been occupied by him since 10.3.2016.

4. The facts on record reveal that a notice is said to have been sent under Section 80 CPC by the opposite party on 14.10.2008 claiming the refund of a sum of Rs. One Lakh with 10% interest within a period of one month and as a failure thereof, the notice threatened of bringing about a legal action against and at the cost of the revisionist. The communication of this notice in the capacity of tenant has been factually denied by the opposite party and it is averred that no such notice was ever communicated at his end by authorising the concerned advocate to send any such notice on his behalf to the revisionist.

5. The facts further reveal that a notice for termination of tenancy was sent by the revisionist on 9.2.2010 which is alleged to have been served to him on 11.2.2010. The failure to comply with the notice dated 9.2.2010 gave rise to the SCC Suit before the Court below for the relief as mentioned above. The notice communicated to the opposite party on 9.2.2010 is in the capacity of a landlord/owner of the property in question but in reply thereto the opposite party denied the landlord-tenant relationship on the basis of an agreement dated 20.6.2007. The notice alleges default in the payment of rent, besides that the landlord informed that he does not wish to continue the premises to be under the tenancy of opposite party who has made certain alterations without any consent.

6. On the premise of the aforesaid notice a suit for eviction coupled with arrears of rent and damages for occupation was filed before the Court below.

7. The plaintiff in his suit has alleged the induction of opposite party as a tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 1000/- w.e.f. March, 2006. The default in the payment of rent is alleged from the month of February, 2007 and at the time of filing the suit, arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 30000/- have been said to have fallen due, recovery whereof alongwith the decree of eviction and mesne profits was prayed for. Apart from above, unauthorised alterations were also alleged against the opposite party giving rise to a cause.

8. The suit was contested by the opposite party and a written statement denying the case of revisionist/plaintiff and setting up his defence against the relief sought by the revisionist was put up.

9. From the perusal of written statement filed by the opposite party, it is evident that the landlord and tenant relationship was specifically denied, therefore, termination of tenancy by notice, according to the opposite party, was inconsequential. The defence and the claim set up by the opposite party/defendant can be gathered from the contents of Paras 2, 14, 15, 16 and 17 of the written statement filed by him, which for ready reference are reproduced below:

“2. That the contents of para 2 of the plaint are totally wrong and false hence vehemently denied, it is a cooked story only for the purpose of the case, the property in suit was never let out by the plaintiff to the defendant, as such there is no question of payment of rent to the plaintiff and no relationship of land lord and tenant ev