Vinod Kumar Misra, J. –

Revisionist, Smt. Vandana Gupta, has preferred this revision against the opposite parties, Mukesh Babu and Smt. Renu Gupta against the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2012 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 11, Aligarh in S.C.C. Suit No. 36 of 2009.

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned counsel for the opposite parties.

3. Necessary facts of the present revision are as follows:

4. Small Causes Suit No. 36 of 2009 was filed by Sri Mukesh Babu and Smt. Renu Gupta plaintiffs against Smt. Vandana Gupta, defendant for ejectment and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages.

5. According to the plaintiffs, they have purchased two shops and house from earlier owner, Yogendra Kumar through sale deed dated 3.7.2009. The portion of the sale deed came in the share of Yogendra Kumar in family partition amongst the brothers of Yogendra Kumar. In the share of Yogendra Kumar there was one shop and one godown whose tenant was defendant, Vandana Gupta. Defendant was tenant in the shop at the rate of Rs. 700/per month and she was also tenant in the godown, which was situated behind the shop at the rate of Rs. 1500/. So, total rent was Rs. 2200/- per month excluding taxes. Defendant had paid rent of the shop and go down at the rate of Rs. 2200/- per month till June,2009 to its previous landlord. Defendant became the tenant of plaintiffs since July, 2009. Plaintiffs informed the defendant regarding the ownership of the shop and godown vested in plaintiffs from the sale deed and demanded rent from defendant at the rate of Rs. 2200/- excluding taxes but defendant did not pay rent to the plaintiffs and evaded the payment of the rents. Plaintiffs sent notice to defendant on 4.11.2009 for the payment of arrears of rent and for ejectment from shop and godown. Notice was received by defendant but defendant neither paid arrears of rent and taxes nor vacated the tenanted accommodation. Plaintiff is doing business on the tenanted accommodation through her husband. The provisions of Uttar Pradesh Rent Control and Eviction Act, 13 of 1972 do not apply in the tenanted accommodation. Tenanted accommodation is of worth Rs. 5,000/- per month rent. Defendant is in arrears of rent since 3.7.2009 to 2.11.2009 at the rate of Rs. 2200/-, water tax Rs. 880/-, drainage tax at Rs. 352/-, house tax Rs. 1056/- and is also liable to pay cost of notice Rs. 912/-. Total due against the defendant of rent and taxes is Rs. 12,099/- excluding interest. Defendant replied the notice alleging false statements.

6. Defendant filed her written statement in the trial court and submitted that plaintiffs have no cause of action. Notice is illegal and incorrect. Plaintiffs are tenant of shop along with 'Chabutra at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month through rent deed dated 22.2.2002 and tenant of godown at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month through rent deed dated 18.1.2008. Defendant had paid rent till June, 2009 at the above rate to the landlord/owner. Defendant disputed the rate of rent and liability to pay taxes. Defendant is doing business in the disputed shop and godown with the name, Prakash Provision Store. Plaintiffs intend to evict defendant from the disputed shop and godown forcefully. Defendant had earlier filed a suit no. 398 of 2009 for perpetual injunction in the court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kol, Aligarh. Defendant sent the rent of June and August, 2009 at the rate of Rs. 500/- through money order to the plaintiffs, which plaintiffs refused to accept. Defendant had deposited the rent since July to September, 2009 in the court under Section 30 (1) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Defendant had also deposited arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 500/- at the first date of hearing under Order 15, Rule 5 of the C.P.C. along with 9% interest in the court. Provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable in the present case. Replication was also filed by the plaintiffs reiterating the facts mentioned in the plaint.