Hon’ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.—Heard Sri Rahul Chaudhary, learned counsel for the defendant-revisionist, Sri P.K. Jain, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Lalit Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff No. 1/3 and Sri Nitin Kesarwani, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent No. 3/1 in SCC Revision No. 171 of 2017. Also heard Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel for the defendant-revisionist and Sri Ninit Kesarwani, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent No. 3/1 and Sri Lalit Kumar, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent No. 1/3 in SCC Revision No. 172 of 2017.

Facts of the case :

2. Both the above noted revisions arise from the impugned judgment dated 4.5.2017 in SCC Case No. 09 of 1979. The revision No. 171 of 2017 has been filed by the firm and one of its partner, namely, Sri Pradeep Kumar Jain while the Revision No. 172 of 2017 has been filed by the heirs and legal representatives of the partner Sri Pradyumn Kumar Jain under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘’Act’).

3. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the deceased respondent-plaintiff Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 were the owner and landlord of the disputed building situate at Station Road, Moradabad. In a portion of the disputed building, one Sri Sumer Chand (defendant No. 1) was the tenant at a monthly rent of Rs.625/- in which, he was carrying on business under the name and style of “Pankaj Hotel”. Subsequently, the aforesaid defendant No. 1 started taking rent receipts in the name of Pankaj Hotel. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, namely, Sri Sumer Chand and M/s. Pankaj Hotel through Sumer Chand defaulted in payment of rent and made material alterations in the disputed building causing substantial damages to the building and disfigured it without the permission of the plaintiffs-landlords. Consequently, the plaintiffs-landlords issued a notice dated 24.6.1978 to the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, namely, Sri Sumer Chand and M/s. Pankaj Hotel through Sri Sumer Chand whereby the tenancy was terminated and the arrears of rent was demanded. The aforesaid notice was served upon the aforesaid defendants on 28.6.1978. Since the defendants had not vacated the disputed portion and as such the plaintiffs filed a JSCC Suit No. 9 of 1979 (Sri Bal Mukund and others v. Sumer Chand Jain and others) on 11.8.1979 for eviction of the tenant from the disputed portion and recovery of arrears of rent and damages of Rs.8,065.55 and Rs.7,782.10 respectively. Further prayer was made for decree of expenses and remaining damages. The defendants filed a written statement dated 10.3.1980. The aforesaid suit was dismissed by the Court of 12th Additional District Judge, Moradabad by judgment dated 22.2.1991.

4. During the pendency of the aforesaid SCC Suit No. 9 of 1979, the plaintiff, Bal Mukund died. He was succeeded by his wife Vidyawati and four others who were substituted as plaintiff Nos. 1/1 to 1/5. Aggrieved with the judgment dated 22.2.1991 in SCC Suit No. 9 of 1979, the plaintiffs filed before this Court a Civil Revision No. 930 of 1991 in which, the facts in detail were noted as under;

“4. The suit was instituted initially by four plaintiffs, i.e., Bal Mukund, son of Ram Lal, Mahendra Prakash, son of Chandra Prakash, and Om Prakash and Munish Chandra, sons of Lala Murlidhar. During pendency of suit, plaintiff 1, Sri Bal Mukund, died and has been substituted by legal heirs, i.e., plaintiffs 1/1 to 1/5. Defendants comprised of Sumer Chand, Pankaj Hotel through Sumer Chand Jain, Praduman Kumar Jain and Pradeep Kumar Jain. The relief sought in the aforesaid suit is delivery of possession of disputed property after evicting defendants, recovery of arrears of rent, damages pendente lite etc.

5. Plaint case is that plaintiffs 2 to 4 are owners and landlords of a Kothi situate at Station Road, Moradabad, details whereof are given at the end of plaint. Defendant 1 was let out