Learned counsel for both the parties have agreed that this writ petition may be disposed of at the admission stage.

2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and decree dated 11.7.2008 passed by the Judge, Small Cause Court/Civil Judge (Senior Division) Dehradun (for short the J.S.C.C.) in S.C.C. Suit No. 42 of 2003 Shailendra Kumar Jain Vs. Manvendra Kumar Chatterjee and the judgment and order dated 13.1.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge, Rishikeh in S.C.C. Revision No. 23 of 2008 Manvendra Kumar Chatterjee Vs. Sri Shailendra Kumar Jain (Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 to the writ petition). By the judgment and decree dated 11.7.2008, the learned J.S.C.C. has decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction of the petitioner from the disputed shop as mentioned in the impugned order. By order 13.1.2011, the revision preferred by the petitioner against the judgment and decree passed by the J.S.C.C. has been dismissed upholding the impugned judgment and decree dated 11.7.2008.

3. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition, according to the petitioner, are that the respondent herein filed a suit against the petitioner in the court of the J.S.C.C. which was registered as S.C.C. Suit No. 42 of 200 for recovery of arrears of rent and for eviction alleging therein that the petitioner is a tenant of shop no. 12 situate on the ground floor of his building no. 103, Haridwar Road, Rishikesh, district Dehradun on monthly rent of Rs. 622/- and he was also liable to pay other taxes @ 25.50% per annum. The plaintiff also alleged that the disputed shop is newly constructed and the first assessment of the building was effective from 1.4.1987. The provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable to the building in question. The plaintiff also alleged that the disputed shop was rented out to the petitioner on 15.9.1986 at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month and it was agreed between the parties that after every three years, the rent shall be increased by 20% automatically. It was also agreed that the rent shall be payable in advance. The rent of the disputed shop from 15.9.2001 was being paid by the defendant-petitioner at the rate of Rs. 622/- per month, but the petitioner defaulted in payment of rent from 1.4.2003 which was payable with 20% increase. Ultimately the plaintiff-respondent sent a notice determining the tenancy of the petitioner and demanding the arrears of rent and asking the petitioner to vacate the disputed shop and to deliver its possession within 30 days. When the notice was complied with, the plaintiff-respondent filed the S.C.C. Suit No. 42 of 2003 for recovery of arrears of rent for eviction of the petitioner from the disputed shop. Plaintiff also claimed damages at the rate of Rs. 60/- per day from the date of filing of suit till delivery of possession.

4. The defendant-petitioner contested the suit by filing his written statement. He admitted the plaintiff to be the landlord of the disputed shop. He admitted in the written statement that an unregistered agreement was executed between the parties on 15.9.1986 and the tenancy was created. The petitioner has asserted that rent upto 31.3.2003 was paid. It was also pleaded that initially the plaintiff used to issue rent receipts but later on the rent was being paid through bank-draft. He denied arrears of rent from 15.9.2001 against him. It was also asserted that in the year 1994 on the demand of the plaintiff-respondent, the petitioner used to pay rent in lump-sum for many months upto the year 2003; that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. In the additional pleas, it was asserted that the rent was liable to be increased by 20% after every three years, which the defendant used to pay. The defendant sent a Money Order for the amount of Rs. 3,930/- on 20.9.2003, which was refused by the plaintiff.

5. The