Hon’ble Manoj Misra, J.—Both these revisions have been filed by the defendants of S.C.C. Suit No. 5 of 2012 (herein after referred to as the suit). The suit was instituted by Dr. Amit Bansal (plaintiff-respondent) against Sri Shailendra Sharma and Sri Satish Paliwal (defendant-revisionists). As both the revisions arise out of the said suit and are between same set of parties, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties they were heard together and are being decided by a common judgment.

2. The suit was instituted by plaintiff-respondent against the defendant-revisionists for eviction of the defendants from an accommodation bearing No. 3/19-A/1, situated at Sitakunj, Nagla Padi, behind Civil Courts compound, Hari Parvat, Agra comprising one big hall (26' x 42') on lower ground floor; one room (10' x 12') adjacent to old pucca well on lower ground floor; one room (10' x 14') over it on upper ground floor; and four rooms with open space on upper ground floor. Apart from ejectment decree, money decree of Rs. 5,05,800/- alongwith future and pendente lite interest @ 18% per annum as well as mesne profits, damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per month besides taxes from the date of institution of the suit, till the date of recovery of vacant possession from the defendants to the plaintiffs alongwith costs of the suit was sought.

3. The plaint case was that the defendants were inducted as tenants in the accommodation dispute, which was newly constructed on 1.10.1992, on a monthly rent of Rs. 3,000/- besides taxes; that with effect from 1.4.2000, rent was enhanced and paid by the defendants up to 31.3.2006 at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per month and, thereafter, with effect from 1.4.2006 up to 31.3.2008 rent was enhanced and paid at the rate of Rs. 7,100/- per month; and, thereafter, with effect from 1.4.2008 up to 31.3.2009 rent was enhanced and paid at the rate of Rs 15,000/- per month. It was pleaded that the plaintiff had always issued proper rent receipt to the defendants and the defendants had signed on the counter foil of the receipt book. It was claimed that initially the property was owned by mother of the plaintiff who died on 6.8.2008, where after the plaintiff, being her only son, became the owner and landlord of the said property. It was claimed that the defendant did not pay rent with effect from 1.4.2009 in spite of repeated demand and requests by the plaintiff therefore the plaintiff, through Sri Ashok Kumar Gupta, Advocate, sent a registered notice dated 5.3.2011 thereby demanding the arrears of rent and taxes with 18% per annum interest as well as costs of Rs. 2300/- and by the said notice, the tenancy was also terminated by giving one month’s time to the defendant to handover peaceful and vacant possession of the property but, in spite of service of notice, the defendants did not vacate the premises and instead gave an incorrect reply through Sri B.D. Padalia, Advocate. It was claimed that the market rental value of the accommodation was not less than Rs. 40,000/- per month; and that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were not applicable because firstly the rent was higher than Rs. 2000/- p.m. and secondly the building came to be first assessed on 30.9.1992.

4. The defendants filed a written statement claiming that the monthly rent of the accommodation in dispute was Rs. 1800 per month whereas Rs. 4300 per month was payable towards maintenance charges. It was claimed that the defendants used to pay Rs. 6100/- in total on a monthly basis but never any rent receipt was issued. It was claimed that they had never signed on the counter foil of the receipt book as alleged by the plaintiff and the rent had never been enhanced as was alleged. It was further claimed that the defendants were not in arrears and, in fact, rent up to April, 2010 stood paid. It was also stated that the plaintiff took from the defendants account payee cheques towards payment of monthly charges with effect