JUDGMENT :

Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.

1. Heard Sri Some Narayan Mishra, learned counsel for the defendant-tenants/petitioners and Sri Nitin Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the plaintiff-landlady/respondent no.3.

Facts:-

2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that undisputedly, the plaintiff-respondent no.3 is the owner and landlady of a shop bearing Municipal No.185/1, Railway Road, Dibai, Pargana and Tehsil Dibai, District Bulandshahr, which she had purchased by a registered sale-deed dated 5.12.1991. She built three shops in it. First assessment of the disputed property was made in the year 1993. By a registered sale-deed dated 25.2.1997, the plaintiff-landlady/respondent no.3 had sold one shop to one Sri Suresh Chand Gupta, son of Sri Nand Kishore Gupta. She had let out the second shop to Sri Yogendra. The third shop was let out by her to the defendant-tenant/petitioners nos.1 and 2.

3. According to the plaintiff-landlady/respondent no.3, the defendant-tenants/petitioners defaulted in payment of rent from 01.01.2010. Therefore, the plaintiff-landlady/ respondent no.3 issued a notice dated 31.3.2010 to the defendant-tenants/petitioners, under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act,1882 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act 1882') whereby she determined the tenancy and demanded arrears of rent. The defendants-tenants/petitioners did not comply with notice. Therefore, she filed S.C.C. Suit No.15 of 2010 (Smt. Maya Devi v. Rakesh Kumar and others) in the court of Judge Small Cause, Bulandshahr. In the aforesaid suit five issues were framed as under:

^^1- D;k fookfnr nqdku ij mRrj Áns'k vf/kfu;e la[;k 13 lu 1972 ds Ákfo/kku ykxw ugha gksrs gS\

2- D;k nkok oknh esa vko';d i{kdkj u cuk;s tkus dk vla;kstu dk nks"k gS\

3- D;k Áfroknh ds Åij fnukad 01-01-2010 ls fdjk;k ckdh o ckftc gS vkSj Áfroknh }kjk fdjk;k vnk djus esa pwd dh gS\

4- D;k Áfroknh /kkjk 20¼4½ mRrj Áns'k vf/kfu;e la[;k 13 lu 1972 dk ykHk ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\

5- vuqrks"k\**

4. Issue nos. 1,2 and 4 were decided by the Judge Small Cause Court, Bulandshahr by judgment dated 14.1.2016 in favour of the plaintiff-landlady/respondent no.3, while Issue No.3 was decided against her and accordingly the relief was declined.

5. Aggrieved with this judgment, the plaintiff-landlady/respondent no.3 filed S.C.C. Revision No.10 of 2016 (Smt. Maya Devi alias Radha Devi v. Suresh Kumar and another), which was allowed by the District Judge, Bulandshahr by judgment dated 31.10.2017 and the matter was remanded to the court below to decide Issue no.3 afresh and also to decide issue No.6 framed by the revisional court as under:

^^D;k okfnuh }kjk fuxZr uksfVl fnukafdr 31-03-2010 oS/k o ÁHkkoh gS\**

6. On remand, the aforesaid S.C.C. Suit No.10 of 2010 was decreed by the Judge Small Causes Court, Bulandshahr by the impugned judgment dated 24.9.2018.

7. Aggrieved with that judgment the defendant-tenants/petitioners filed S.C.C. Revision No.17 of 2018 (Rakesh Kumar and another v. Smt. Maya Devi alias Radha Devi), which has been dismissed by the Additional District Judge (Court No.2), Bulandshahr by the impugned judgment and order dated 23.05.2019.

8. Aggrieved with these two judgments, the defendant-petitioners have filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Submissions:-

9. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners submits as under:

(i) After giving notice dated 31.3.2010, the S.C.C. suit was filed on 20.4.2010. Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, as applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh, provides for 30 days notice for filing a suit. Since, the S.C.C. Suit was filed by the plaintiff-landlady/respondent no.3 prior to expiry of 30 days, therefore, the suit itself was not maintainable. Reliance is placed upon the Single Judge judgment of this Court in Mohd. Afzal v. Smt. Ramesh Kumari, (2014) 3 ARC 864 (Paragraph-10).

(ii) The findings recorded by the courts below on Issue No.2 regarding non-payment of rent is incorrect, inasmuch as, the rent was b