JUDGMENT :

UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

1. Since both the revisions have been preferred by the defendant-tenant and the plaintiffs-landlords, respectively, against the judgment and order dated 22.8.2012 passed by Judge Small Causes Court/Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Hathras. Therefore, both the revisions are being decided by this common judgment.

2. In brief, facts of the case are that Virendra Singh and others are the owner and the landlord of the house in suit in which the opposite party-defendant is a tenant from 1994 @ 1,000/- per month apart from 10% water and house tax.

3. Since the plaintiffs stay out of Hathras for a long time in connection to their job hence their mother Smt. Shanti Devi used to live with minor grand son Raju alias Arvind Kumar. Smt. Shanti Devi died in the year 2001, thereafter plaintiffs are the owner and landlords of the house in question and are entitled to receive the rent. The defendant is a great defaulter in payment of rent and has not paid the rent of the said house since 1.10.1999. When plaintiffs demanded the rent, he preferred false case against the plaintiffs for permanent injunction for unnecessarily harassing the plaintiffs.

4. Plaintiffs through their counsel sent legal notice dated 11.8.2022 and offered to pay the rent and taxes within 30 days from receiving the notice. In spite of service of notice, defendant did not pay the rent and the amount of taxes but a false and fabricated reply alleging himself to be the tenant @ Rs. 200/- per month and also did not accept that the amount was due against him. The tenancy of the defendant has been terminated. Since 1.10.1999 to 31.18.2002 there is arrears of rent of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 3,500/- each for house and water tax along with Rs. 3,00/- expense towards notice. Total Rs. 42,300/- is due which has not been paid by the defendant in spite of notice, hence the defendant is liable to be evicted and the due amount of the rent is liable to be recovered and the defendant-tenant is also liable to pay Rs. 2,500/- per month for use and occupation of the shop in suit. Valuing the suit and after paying the sufficient court fee, the plaintiffs had preferred the suit.

5. In written statement 11 C defendant admitted the plaintiffs to be the owner and landlords of the shop in suit and has said that no cause of action arises to the plaintiffs; they are not entitled for any relief; the defendant-tenant had taken the shop in suit on rent from 10.2.1992 @ Rs. 2,00/- per month along with house and water tax from Smt. Shanti Devi; he has been paying the rent regularly to Smt. Shanti Devi but she never provided any receipt, however, she used to note the receiving on a diary; Shanti Devi died in the year 2001, thereafter the tenant paid the rent to Dharmendra Kumar till November 2001; Dharmendra Kumar also passed away on 20.11.2001, thereafter plaintiffs demanded the rent from him separately and served notice through their counsel in the month of February, 2002 and thereafter with mutual consent received the rent from the defendant without giving receipt of rent but noted the payment in diary and also got the signature of the defendant; the said diary is in the possession of the plaintiffs.

6. On receiving of notice dated 11.8.2002 defendant came to know about the mala-fide intention of the plaintiffs and prepared reply on 4.9.2002 and sent through his counsel on 5.9.2002. Defendant-tenant also sent the reasonable rent from 11.6.2002 to 10.9.2002 which was not received by the plaintiffs. The notice is completely illegal and the illegitimate on which basis the tenancy never ends. On the date of notice dated 11.8.2002, there was only arrears of two months rent which was not received intentionally by the plaintiffs. In the notice, the plaintiffs have wrongly endorsed that the rent is due since 1.10.1999. The tenancy commenced from 11th of the month, not from the first day of the month. The plaintiffs have not filed any document, hence the suit is barred by Order 7