IMPORTANT POINT
The court clarified that a tenant cannot benefit from their own failure to pay stamp duty on an agreement, affirming the validity of the agreement presented by the revisionist.

JUDGMENT :

Subhash Vidyarthi, J.

1. Heard Sri Pritish Kumar and Sri. Amal Rastogi, the learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri Abhay Kumar Srivastava, the learned counsel for the sole opposite party. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the revision is being decided finally at the admission stage itself.

2. By means of the instant revision filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, the revisionist has challenged validity of a judgment and order dated 29.05.2024 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 16, Lucknow in SCC Suit No. 14 of 2014, whereby the SCC Suit filed by the opposite party for the revisionist’s ejectment from a shop in his tenancy and for recovery of rent at the rate of Rs.6,600/-per month, has been decreed.

3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the opposite party on 07.02.2014 inter alia stating that she is the owner of building No.133/211 situated in Mohalla Takiya Ganeshganj, Aminabad Road, P.S. Naka, District- Lucknow. The defendant-revisionist is her tenant in respect of one of the shops situated in the building which is bounded as below: -

4. It was pleaded in the plaint that initially the revisionist’s father Mangal Prasad was a tenant of the shop in question, who died on 30.07.2011. Thereafter, the revisionist entered into a tenancy agreement with the opposite party for a period of 11 months, at a monthly rent of Rs.6,600/-for the same shop which was previously in his father’s tenancy. When the revisionist did not vacate the shop in spite of termination of his tenancy rights by efflux of time, she sent a legal notice dated 01.01.2014 to the revisionist but he declined to receive the same. The opposite party further stated that the revisionist has not paid rent since 01.09.2011.

5. The opposite party had filed an agreement dated 20.09.2011 allegedly executed between her and the revisionist.

6. The revisionist filed a written statement of his defense denying the plaint averments and he pleaded that he was a lawful tenant in occupation of the shop in question, at the monthly rent of Rs.500/-. The revisionist denied that the rent of shop in question is Rs.6,600/-per month and he specifically stated that the rent at the aforesaid rate has not been paid at any point of time. The revisionist further stated that when the opposite party did not receive rent from him after the death of his father, he had started depositing the rent in Misc. Case No.75 of 2013 under Section 30 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Act No.13 of 1972. The revisionist denied having received any notice sent by the opposite party or to have declined to receive the same. In additional pleas, the revisionist pleaded that the opposite party had filed an application under Section 21 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, wherein she had pleaded that rent of the shop in question was Rs.6,600/-per month . As the premises fell outside the purview of Uttar Pradesh Act No.13 of 1972 as per pleadings made in the application under Section 21 of Uttar Pradesh Act No.13 of 1972, the application had been dismissed as not maintainable.

7. The revisionist filed a rent agreement dated 21.09.2011 executed between the parties wherein the agreed rent was said to be Rs.500/-per month and the period of tenancy was agreed to be 11 months with effect from 31.07.2011. It was specifically stated in this agreement that the period of tenancy will expire on 31.05.2012 whereafter the tenancy will stand terminated automatically.

8. The opposite party filed her affidavit as her examination-in-chief wherein she reiterated the plaint averments. She stated that a rent agreement had been executed between the parties for giving the shop in question on rent to the revisionist for a period o