MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.

1. Heard Sri N.C. Rajvanshi, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Vishesh Rajvanshi for the plaintiff-revisionists. None appears for the defendant-opposite party, despite sufficient service.

2. The plaintiff-revisionists instituted a suit of the nature of small causes being SCC Suit No. 50/2010 against the defendant-opposite party (for short 'the tenant') for eviction from a shop in his tenancy bearing No. 2 in Building No. 251, New No. 113, Mukund Nagar, Ghaziabad and for recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits. It was alleged that rent of the shop was Rs. 3390/- per month. The tenancy was from month to month starting from the first day of the month and ending on the last day. It was further alleged that rent till February 2010 was paid by the tenant by cheque, but rent and electricity charges from March 2010 onwards had not been paid, despite service of notice dated 19.5.2010 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short 'the Act'). It was further asserted that as the rent of the premises exceeded Rs. 2000/- per month, consequently, the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were not applicable. The tenant had failed to vacate even after expiry of statutory period of thirty days, consequently, the suit was instituted.

3. The suit was contested by the tenant by filing written statement, in which it was admitted that the rent of the shop was Rs. 3390/- per month. The tenant asserted that the plaintiff-revisionists have deliberately stopped accepting the rent. He accepted the receipt of notice, but claimed that along with the reply to said notice, he remitted a sum of Rs. 13560/- by draft dated 3.6.2010 drawn on Bank of Baroda. The tenant also asserted that previously he was paying Rs. 400/- per month towards electricity charges to the landlord, but the landlord was not depositing the amount with the Electricity Department. He also asserted that the plaintiffs had no locus to institute the suit. The tenant also claimed protection from eviction under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.

4. The trial Court by impugned judgment dated 26.11.2012 dismissed the suit for the relief of eviction, but permitted the plaintiffs to withdraw rent deposited in the Court. It held that provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were not applicable, rent being more than Rs. 2000/- per month. The plaintiffs were found competent to institute the suit as karta of HUF. The tenant was not found to be in default of payment of rent, as he had duly tendered a sum of Rs. 13560/- by draft in response to notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. By applying the principles of Section 114 of the Act, the tenant was relieved from the liability of eviction. The trial Court also held that no amount was payable by the tenant towards electricity charges. It also held that the plaintiffs could not establish bona fide need for the shop in dispute, therefore, it declined to grant relief of eviction.

5. The sole submission of Sri N.C. Rajvanshi, learned senior counsel for the revisionists is that once U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was found to be inapplicable to the building in dispute, the relationship of the parties would stand governed by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. He submitted that the tenancy was terminated by giving notice under Section 106 of the Act. It was not a notice of forfeiture on the ground of non-payment of rent nor provisions of Section 114 were applicable. The tenant became liable for eviction, as service of notice is not in dispute.

6. Since the trial Court has found the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 to be inapplicable, the relationship between the parties was governed by the general law i.e. the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Section 111 of the Act provides various modes and contingencies by and under which a lease of immovable property stands determined. Under Clause (g) thereof, a lease gets determined by forfeiture i.e. where the lessee br