Point of law: When the aid of Revisional Court is invoked on the revisional side, it can interfere within the permissible parameters provided in the statute. It goes without saying that if a revision is provided against an order passed by the Tribunal/appellate authority, the decision of the Revisional Court is the operative decision in law - As regards the extent of appellate or revisional jurisdiction, much would, however, depend on the language employed by the statute conferring appellate jurisdiction and revisional jurisdiction

JUDGMENT :

SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.

1. Heard Sri. Anuj Dayal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Anurag Narain, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent no. 2 filed a Suit for ejectment on 13.07.2005 registered as SCC Suit no. 10 of 2005 on the ground that respondent no. 2 and the wife of his brother Vedrani purchased the property in question on 22.03.1984 and after the death of Vedrani, the respondent alone is the legal heir and owner and landlord of the shop in question. Respondent no. 2 had let out one shop (herein referred to as shop in question) to the father of the petitioners in 1985 on rent at the rate of Rs. 275/- per month which included house tax and water tax. The father of the petitioner had paid rent as well as house tax and water tax till 30th June, 2001. The father of the petitioners expired on 27.03.2004 and after his death petitioner had occupied the shop in question as a joint tenancy. In the plaint filed by respondent no. 2, it was alleged that notice was sent to the petitioners on 17.03.2005 for arrears of rent which they refused to accept. After lapse of statutory period, the of tenancy got automatically terminated on 07.07.2005. It was also stated in the plaint that petitioners had sub-let the premises to one Deepu son of Sri. Rajendra Kumar Saxena on rent of Rs. 1000/- per month and the shop in question is in possession of Deepu.

3. After filing of Suit the notices were issued to the petitioners, they filed written statement. Although they accepted relationship of landlord and tenant they stated that they were giving rent and house tax and water tax till January, 2005 but landlord was not giving any receipts to them. After January, 2005, landlord refused to accept the rent. The petitioners denied the notice of termination of tenancy saying that it was never served upon them. The petitioners are running a General Store in the shop in question and after death of their father, Deepu being his nephew was helping the petitioners in the shop and he was not a sub tenant as alleged in the plaint. It was also stated that the petitioners and their mother were compelled to prefer a suit for injunction which was registered as Regular Suit No. 72 of 2005 in the court of Civil Judge (J.D.) (West) in which interim order was passed that they should not be evicted except in accordance with law. Petitioners were liable to get benefit of Section 20 (4) of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 as they had already preferred an application for depositing the rent unconditionally before the court below in Regular Suit no. 72 of 2005. Since February, 2005 they were depositing the rent in SCC Suit No. 10 of 2005 (the petitioners made an application on 13.12. 2005 before the Judge Small Causes for permission for depository of rent in Court under section 20(4) which was accepted).

4. Learned Additional Civil Judge/Judge Small Causes Court framed seven issues for adjudication. The evidence of respondent no. 2 was taken. He admitted in his statement that he wanted the petitioners to vacate the premises because he wished to start a Coaching Center for his unemployed graduate son. Respondent no. 2 also accepted that Deepu was the nephew of late Rajesh Kumar Saxena, the original tenant and he was taking care of the shop but died during the pendency of the Suit.

5. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that in the statement given by the landlord before the learned court below he accepted the rent of the shop as Rs. 300/- which included water tax and house tax. In the statement of petitioner no. 1, he had stated that petitioner had deposited rent upto June 2005 and it was not disputed during cross-examination by the plaintiff.

6. Learned court below found that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent no. 2 and that the petitioner was also depositing the rent in SCC No. 10/2005 unde