The court affirmed the validity of the notice terminating tenancy and the admissibility of the lease agreement as secondary evidence, emphasizing the defendants' failure to contest the claims.

JUDGMENT :

Ashutosh Srivastava, J.

1. Heard Sri Manish Goel, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Gaurav Tripathi, learned counsel for the Revisionists and Sri Nikhil Agarwal alongwith Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the sole Respondent.

2. The instant SCC Revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 at the instance of the Tenants/Defendants in SCC Suit No. 05 of 2021 has been filed against the judgment and order dated 6.12.2022 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Gautam Buddh Nagar in so far as it rejects the Applications/Paper No. 41-Ga, 43-Ga and 51-Ga preferred by the Revisionists in the SCC Suit as also the order dated 28.4.2023 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge-3, Gautam Buddh Nagar acting as the Judge, Small Cause Court whereby and where-under the SCC Suit No. 5 of 2021 (M/s. Rangoli Garments Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Kaizen India and others) has been decreed and the defendants have been ordered to vacate the Premises No. B-137, Sector 63 Noida, District Gautam Buddh Nagar and hand over its actual physical and legal possession to the plaintiff alongwith arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation till handing over of possession.

3. The facts shorn of unnecessary details, necessary for adjudicating the lis between the parties is that the Plaintiff/Respondent M/s. Rangoli Garments Pvt. Ltd. being a Private Limited Company is the owner/lessor of the industrial building bearing No. B-137, Sector-63 Noida, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, which was leased out to the Defendants/Revisionists under a Registered Lease Agreement dated 27.12.2018 at an agreed monthly rent of Rs. 4,34,250/- excluding GST and all other charges for a period of 3 years w.e.f. 1.1.2019 upto 31.12.2021. Clause 6 of the Agreement provided for an increase of rent by 7% yearly w.e.f. 1.1.2020. It as averred in the plaint that the Revisionists issued cheques of Rs. 5,01,819/- each which included the rent at the rate of Rs. 4,64,648/- for each month, less the TDS alongwith GST thereon at the rate of 18% towards rent for the period 1.2.2020 to 31.5.2020. The rental towards the month of February, 2020 was, however, not deposited by the Defendants/Revisionists. It was also alleged in the plaint that the Defendants/Revisionists were not regular in depositing the rent of the premises. The cheques (four in number) were dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the Bank Account of the Defendants/Revisionists.

4. Clause 20 of the lease agreement contained a stipulation that if the rent remained unpaid for more than two consecutive months the tenancy would stand automatically terminated. The plaint further averred that the Defendants/Revisionists sought waiver of payment of rent for the months of March and April, 2020 and for issuance of credit note for the same and, accordingly, sent E-mail dated 22.5.2020. The request was declined by the plaintiff. The Defendant/Revisionists thereafter sent another E-mail dated 16.6.2020 again requesting for issuance of credit notes for the moths of April and May, 2020.

5. The Plaintiff/Respondent left with no option sent legal Notice to Defendants/Revisionists on 12.6.2020 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, terminating the Tenancy Lease Agreement dated 27.1.2018 and also terminating the leasehold rights of the Defendants/Revisionists asking them to vacate the premises before 31.8.2020. The Defendants/Revisionists again issued cheques towards rent for the months of June, July, August and September, 2020 but the said cheques were also dishonoured. The Plaintiff/Respondent in the aforesaid circumstances instituted the Suit for eviction, and recovery of rent and damages for use and occupation.

6. The Suit was contested by the Defendants/Revisionists by filling written statement. In the written statement inter alia it was stated that the Suit is not maintainable and the plaintiff has no authority to file the Suit. In Para 27 of the written statement it was stated that the