JUDGMENT

Lok Pal Singh, J. - This civil revision, under Section 25 of The Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) is directed against the judgment and decree dated 08.01.2019 passed by Judge, SCC/First Additional District Judge, Dehradun in S.C.C. Suit No.03 of 2012 Har Mohinder Pal Singh vs. Rajendra Pal Singh, whereby the Judge SCC has dismissed the revisionist/plaintiff's suit.

2. Factual matrix of the case is that the plaintiff/revisionist filed SCC suit no.03 of 2012 for a decree of ejectment, arrears of rent and mesne profit against the defendant/respondent stating that the plaintiff is the owner and landlord of property no.28(45/45/1) Malviya Road Lakshman Chowk, Dehradun. Some other co-owners are residing in abroad and in other cities, due to which the plaintiff/revisionist is the landlord/co-owner of suit property. It was stated that a part of the suit property, comprising of three rooms, one common drawing room, kitchen, toilet and bathroom, was let out on rent to the defendant/respondent for a period of 11 months at the rate of Rs.2200/- per month vide agreement dated 15.05.2008. The tenancy of the respondent/defendant has come to an end on 14.04.2009 but even then the defendant has not vacated the suit property despite the request of the plaintiff. It was further stated that the defendant has paid the rent upto 15.09.2008 only and thereafter he has not paid any rent. Besides this, the electricity and water charges are also due on the defendant. Whenever the plaintiff demanded the rent and other charges, the defendant used to abuse and commit marpeet with him. Therefore, the plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 22.04.2010 to the defendant demanding the rent and electricity and water charges, but despite receiving the said notice, the defendant has neither paid the rent and other charges, nor has handed over the vacant possession of the suit premises to him. Thus, the plaintiff constrained to file the present suit, for a decree of eviction, arrears of rent and other charges amounting to Rs.64,100/- along with interest @ 12 % per annum and mesne profits @ Rs.300/- per day w.e.f. 19.05.2010.

3. The respondent/defendant contested the suit and filed his written statement and denied the plaint averments. He admitted that initially the suit property was let out to him by the plaintiff and the tenancy commenced from 15.05.2008 for 11 months @ Rs. 2200/- per month. He stated that subsequently he came to know that plaintiff has no share and there are about 7 co-owners of this property, who are residing abroad. The plaintiff clandestinely with ulterior motives and for unjust enrichment under deep conspiracy is trying to sell the property without any right or authority. It is stated that the suit is legally not maintainable. Provisions of the Act No.13 of 1972 are applicable to the suit property. He further stated that the plaintiff has executed a rent agreement dated 05.07.2011 on the following terms and conditions: (i) that the plaintiff has taken Rs. 2 lakhs from the defendant as security and this amount will not bear any interest and the same is to be returned by the plaintiff after the expiry of the lease period within two months and the rent period is upto 4.6.2012. There is no rent etc. due towards the defendant; (ii) That the rate of rent has been fixed Rs.1200/- per month, which includes the house tax as well as water tax; (iii) that the plaintiff will install a separate sub electric meter and will charge as per reading. The defendant further stated that he has paid the amount of rent, cost of suit, interest and other expenses vide tender dated 01.08.2012 for Rs.20,000/- and thus he is entitled to the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act No.13 of 1972. The rent from January 2012 upto September 2012 has been deposited through tender.

4. The revisionist/plaintiff filed replica to the written statement and reiterated the plaint averments. He further stated that the defendant has stated th