JUDGMENT

Rajan Roy, J.

Heard Mr. Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Mohd. Aslam Khan, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as Mr. Vidya Dhar Upadhyay and Mr. Amrendra Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This revision has been filed under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred as 'Act 1887') challenging the judgement and order dated 25.08.2021 passed by the SCC Court in SCC Suit No. 52 of 2018 by which the said suit of the respondent-plaintiff for arrears of rent, eviction and damages has been allowed.

3. Facts of the case in brief are that the revisionist-defendant was a tenant of the respondent-plaintiff. As he defaulted in payment of rent and there were arrears thereof accordingly on 06.11.2018 a legal notice was given determining the tenancy, asking the revisionist to vacate the premises and to handover peaceful possession, as also, claiming arrears of rent and damages for unauthorized occupation. Based on the said notice, aforesaid suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiff claiming the reliefs already referred here in above. Written statement was filed by the revisionist-defendant, however, his defense was struck off under Order XV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred as 'CPC'), as was applicable in the State of U.P., by the order of the SCC Court dated 16.02.2021. The said order was challenged by the revisionist herein before this Court by means of SCC Revision No. 11 of 2021 (M/S T.R. Diamond Pvt. Ltd. D Divas 1, Hazratganj, Lucknow v. M/S Priyanshi Developers Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Auth. Sign. Vivek Jain), but, the revision was dismissed on 29.11.2021. The challenge was not taken any further by the revisionist, thus, the said orders have attained finality between the parties.

4. The SCC Court framed following points for determination in the SCC Suit:

(A) Whether there was relationship of tenant and landlord between the parties to the suit?

(B) Whether the notice given by the plaintiff was valid?

(C) Whether the defendant in suit had defaulted in payment of rent?

(D) The relief, if any, to which the plaintiff was entitled.

5. The SCC Court recorded a finding regarding point (A) that there was a relationship of tenant and landlord between the parties before it and the same had been duly proved on the basis of evidence. In fact, this was admitted by the defendant in another suit being Original Suit No. 2629 of 2014 which had been filed by Mr. Aveg Mehrotra Director of M/s T.R. Diamond Pvt. Ltd. (revisionist herein), certified copy of which was filed by the plaintiff.

6. As regards point (B), it was held that notice was valid and it had been duly served upon defendant, a fact which had been proved on the basis of evidence on record including the testimony of PW-1 and track consignment document of the post office which had been filed.

7. As regards point (C), a finding was recorded that the defendant had defaulted in payment of rent. In this context, the SCC Court relied upon statement of defendant wherein he had admitted the relationship of tenant and landlord and also that the premises had been let out to it on a monthly rent of Rs.3, 77, 000/- per month in the plaint of Original Suit No. 2629 of 2014 filed on its behalf, as already referred. Based on it, the SCC Court determined the rate of rent as Rs.3, 77, 000/- per month. With regard to the assertion of the defendant that based on the compromise rent had been determined at Rs.2, 85, 285/- per month in April, 2015, it recorded a finding that there was no evidence which supports the said asse