The main legal point established is the interpretation of the rent agreement and relevant provisions of the U.P. Rent Control Act, 1972 to determine the applicability of the Act and the nature of the tenancy.

JUDGMENT :

The present revision has been filed by the revisionist against the impugned judgment and order dated 25.07.2023 passed by SCC Judge/1st Additional District Judge, Haridwar in S.C.C. Suit No. 06 of 2018 ‘Ramji Krishna Sharma vs. Sonika Aggarwal’, whereby the court below has allowed the said suit by directing the revisionist to handover the vacant peaceful possession to the respondent/plaintiff within a period of 30 days.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record available on file.

3. Counsel for the revisionist/defendant no. 1 tenant would submit that S.C.C. Suit No. 06 of 2018 was filed before Small Causes Court, Haridwar by the respondent no. 1/landlord on the grounds of termination of tenancy for non-payment of rent and inducting the sub-tenant i.e. respondent no. 2/defendant no. 2 from the property in question. He would further submit that four issues were framed by the trial court which read as follows:-

i. As to whether the revisionist/defendant no. 1/tenant is inducted as tenant in the property stated in the schedule at the bottom of the plaint at the rent of Rs. 2928/- per month.

ii. As to whether the suit is barred under the provisions of U.P. Rent Control Act, 1972.

iii. As to whether the tenancy of the revisionist/defendant no. 1/tenant was terminated by the notice dated 12.02.2018.

iv. As to whether the respondent no. 1/plaintiff is entitled to any relief in the Small Causes Court.

4. Counsel for the revisionist/defendant no. 1 tenant would submit that the evidence was adduced by the respective parties except that the respondent no. 2/defendant no. 2 neither file written statement nor adduced any evidence whatsoever.

Counsel for the revisionist/defendant no. 1 tenant would submit that it is an admitted fact that after receipt of the notice, the revisionist/defendant no. 1 tenant paid all the arrears of rent as claimed by the respondent no. 1/plaintiff landlord in his notice dated 12.02.2018 and this fact is stated in the plaint also; that, though, in the rent agreement was for two shops i.e. Shop No. 6 & Shop No. 7, but one Rent Agreement was executed; that, the rent of the tenanted premises of two shops is stated in Rent Agreement of Rs. 2000/- per month with additional clause that on expiry of three years of the tenancy, the rent can be enhanced @ 10%; that, but in reality, the two tenancy in respect of Shop No. 6 and Shop No. 7 were created though single Rent Agreement was executed; that, as tenancy of two shops i.e. the shop no.6 and shop no.7 were created by single Rent Agreement, therefore, the rent of Rs. 2,928/- shall be for two shops i.e. Rs. 1,464/- for each, hence the suit was barred by the provisions of U.P. Rent Control Act, 1972. He would further submit that respondent no. 1/plaintiff landlord could not prove the fact of sub-tenancy of respondent no. 2/defendant no. 2.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist/defendant no. 1 tenant drew attention of the Court to the rent agreement (Page no. 55 of the revision) and would submit that in the schedule of tenanted premises (Page No. 56 at bottom of the agreement) it is clearly stated that in the description of the tenanted premises Shop No. 6 and Shop No. 7 are situated at Ramji Krishna Bhawan Mansha Devi Ropeway Marg Upper Road, Haridwar. He would further submit that in the Clause-1 of the said rent agreement, it is stated that the security amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four lacs) was paid by way of two Drafts of Rs. 2,00,000/- each (Rupees Two lacs) both dated 07.10.2006, which gives inevitable inference that the tenancy of two shops i.e. Shop No. 6 and Shop No. 7 were created by single Rent Agreement. He would further submit that it is admitted by the respondent no. 1/plaintiff/landlord that the original tenancy was created in the year 1970 and there was no new constructions made in the year 2000, therefore, the Small Causes Court erred by giving wrong finding on the fact that Rent Act, 1972 did not apply as the construction of t