Pankaj Mithal, J. –

Heard Sri P.K. Sinha, learned counsel for the defendant revisionist and Sri B.N. Rai, learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent.

2. The plaintiff respondent is the owner and landlord of house No.111/395, Ashok Nagar, Kanpur Nagar wherein defendant revisionist is said to be a tenant.

3. The plaintiff respondent filed S.C.C. Suit No.23 of 2009 for arrears of rent and eviction of the defendant revisionist from the aforesaid house. The suit has been decreed by the judgement and order dated 21.08.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge exercising powers of the Small Causes Court.

4. The defendant revisionist aggrieved by the aforesaid judgement and order of the court below has preferred this revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887.

5. One of the arguments of Sri P.K. Sinha, learned counsel for the defendant revisionist is that the suit for eviction could not have been decreed without a valid notice determining the tenancy and its service. Secondly, there is no evidence to establish the rate of rent and only on the basis of the sale deed alleged to have been executed in favour of plaintiff respondent by none-else then his w