The central legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the applicability of Act No. 13 of 1972, the validity of the notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, and the establishment of ownership of the property.

Vishnu Chandra Gupta, J.

1. Heard Shri K.D. Tripathi, learned counsel for the tenant/revisionist and Shri Prashant Mishra , learned counsel for the land lord/respondent.

2. The instant revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 17.2.2010 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court/Additional District Judge, Court No. 8, Agra in SCC Suit No. 16 of 2008.

3. The trial court decreed the suit of the land-lord for ejectment and arrears of rent of Rs. 12300/- and notice fee of Rs. 550 /- alongwith 6% interest from the date of filing of the suit on dated 26.3.2008 till the date of vacation of shop in question . The shop was ordered to be vacated within a period of one and half month. It was also observed therein that the plaintiff-respondent will be entitled to Rs. 900/- per month from the date of decree till the date of delivery of possession of shop as measne profit with cost.

4. Relevant facts for deciding this revision are that father of land lord Khushyal Das had purchased a open plot measuring 150 Sq.yard from the society known as "Pratap Sahakari Awas Samiti Ltd., Agra" by means of sale-deed dated 17.7.1986. The plot was constructed in the year 1988. After the death of his father in 1996 Khushyal Das, the plaintiff respondent became the owner of the shop/house in question. The shop in question was let out at the rent of Rs. 300 /- per month on 1.10.2001 to the revisionist. It was enhanced to Rs. 500/- per month on 1.10.2002. Lastly the rent was enhanced from Rs. 700/- per month to Rs. 900/- per month on 1.10.2006. The rent including tax of the shop in question was not deposited by the tenant-revisionist with effect from 1.1.2007. Thus, the amount of Rs. 12,300/- is due against the tenant-revisionist from 1.1.2007 to 20.2.2008. Apart from it, the tenant-revisionist has made alteration/construction over the shop in question, due to which the cost of the shop has been deprecated. Under these circumstances, the land lord/ respondent has sent notice to the tenant-revisionist regarding termination of the tenancy through registered post on 15.1.2008 . After service of notice he filed the aforesaid suit for ejectment, recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation.

5. The suit was contested by the tenant-revisionist. Both parties adduced their evidence. The trial court after considering the evidence adduced by the parties decided the suit wherein it has been held that shop in question is not covered under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Urban Building (Regulation of letting, Rent Eviction ) Act, 1972 (Hereinafter referred to as "Act No. 13 of 1972"), hence bar of section 20 (4) of the Act is not attracted. The trial court also held that tenant has failed to establish that the landlord was not the owner of the property in question. It was further held that rent of the shop in question was not Rs. 1000/- per month but actually it was Rs. 700/- per month. It was further held that valid and legal notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was given by the land lord to the tenant terminating the tenancy. Consequently the suit was decreed for recovery of rent of Rs. 12300/- alongwith 6% simple interest from the date of institution of the suit and also for eviction from the shop in question.

6. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the tenant-revisionist that part of the case of plaintiff-respondent regarding rate of rent per month was disbelieved by the trial court. It is further submitted that the trial court held that rent of the shop in question was Rs. 700/- per month on the date of presentation of the suit but actually the rent was Rs.500/- per month. It has been wrongly held that provisions of Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable as the shop in question was not the construction of the year 1988. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the plainti