Hon’ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.—Heard Sri Manish Dev Singh, learned counsel for defendant-revisionist/tenant and Sri R.U. Ansari alongwith Sri Rajesh Rai, learned counsels for the plaintiff-respondent/landlord.

Facts :

2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that undisputedly the plaintiff-respondent is the owner and the landlord of House No. E-54, G.T.B. Nagar, Kareli Allahabad, who has let out the aforesaid house to the defendant-revisionist in November, 2004 on a monthly rent of Rs. 20,000/-. Subsequently, in March, 2005, the ground floor, first floor and second floor of the house was let out to the defendant-revisionist on a monthly rent of Rs. 22,250/-. Thereafter, since September, 2008, the defendant-revisionist is continuing as tenant only on the ground floor at a monthly rent of Rs. 10,000/-.

3. vide notice dated 6.4.2011, the plaintiff-respondent terminated the tenancy of the defendant-revisionist. The said notice was replied by the defendant-revisionist but he did not vacate the tenanted portion of the disputed house. Consequently, the plaintiff-respondent filed S.C.C. Suit No. 35 of 2011, which has been decreed by the impugned judgment dated 26.9.2017 and the decree dated 12.10.2017. Aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and decree, the defendant-revisionist has filed the present revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act, 1887.

Submissions :

4. Submission of learned counsel for the defendant-revisionist is that the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act said to have been issued by the plaintiff-respondent, was not proved. While deciding the issues No. 1, 2 and 4, the Court below found that the entire rent was paid by the defendant-revisionist to the plaintiff-respondent and thus there was no arrears of rent. He, therefore, submits that since this finding has been recorded and issues No. 1, 2 and 4 were decided against the plaintiff-respondent, therefore, it was not permissible for the Court below to decree the suit on the ground that tenancy has been determined by the notice dated 6.4.2011. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the defendant-revisionist has relied upon a decision of this Court in Vinod Kumar Shukla (since dead) and others v. Gyan Mandal Ltd., Varanasi, 2017 (123) ALR 865 and the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in H. Siddiqui (dead) by LRs. v. A ramalingam, (2011) 4 SCC 240 (Paras-9 to 14 and 17).

5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent submits that the tenancy was lawfully terminated by the plaintiff-respondent. After expiry of the period of notice, the defendant-revisionist has no right to occupy the disputed portion of the house in question as tenant in view of the provisions of Section 106 read with Sections 108 and 111 of Transfer of Property Act. He further submits that the impugned judgment and decree has been passed well in accordance with law and, therefore, it requires no interference.

6. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the revision before me.

Discussion and Findings :

7. There is no dispute that the plaintiff-respondent is the owner and landlord of the disputed house in a portion of which the defendant-revisionist is tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 10,000/-. Thus, provisions of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 are not applicable. The issue (Nos.) 1, 2 and 4 have been decided by the Court below against the plaintiff-respondent holding that the defendant-revisionist has paid the entire rent. Issue No. 3 regarding validity of notice was decided against the defendant-revisionist holding the notice under Section 106 of the Act to be valid.

8. The issue Nos. 5 and 6 were also decided against the defendant-revisionist holding that since as per notice dated 6.4.2011, the tenancy has been determined, therefore, the defendant is liable to vacate and handover possession of the tenanted portion of the house to the plaintiff.

9. Undisputedly, the tenancy in the