E Court Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28686 Court No. - 6 Case :- S.C.C. REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 6 of 2025 Revisionist :- Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Bsnl) New Delhi Thru. Chairman/C.M.D. And Another Opposite Party :- Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Sultanpur And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Yogesh Chandra Bhatt,Anurag Srivastava,Mohd. Aatif Counsel for Opposite Party :- Sharad Pathak,Saurabh Pathak Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. The delay in filing the present revision is condoned. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The present revision has been filed by the revisionists challenging an order dated 08.02.2024 passed by Additional District Judge, Sultanpur in SCC Suit No. 01 of 2010. 4. The facts in brief are that the revisionists were the occupants as tenant in the premises owned by the respondent in terms of an agreement executed inter-say in between the parties. The agreement commenced from 20.08.2004 and ended on 19.08.2009, the rent as mutually fixed was Rs.8000/- per month. Thereafter, the revisionists continued to be in occupation of the premises on the basis of enhanced rent, which was increased to Rs.8800/- per month for the further period of five years. However, no agreement was executed inter- say in between the parties. The respondent on the other hand instituted a SCC Suit No. 01 of 2010, in which an application was filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which came to be allowed by the Court below on 05.05.2010. An application was filed for recall of the order dated 05.05.2010, which was rejected on 21.04.2012. Aggrieved against the said order, the respondent preferred a Civil Revision No. 52 of 2012, which came to be allowed on 25.02.2014 and the order dated 05.05.2010 was set aside. Thereafter, the revisionists filed their written statement in the SCC suit. Initially, two issues were framed inter-say in between the parties with regard to service of notice. Ultimately the suit came to be decided in favour of the respondent and suit was decreed for ejectment and arrears of damages were quantified at Rs.10400/- per month. Aggrieved against the said, the respondent preferred a revision before this Court, wherein the matter was remanded for ascertaining the mesne profits afresh. 5. It is also bears from the record that the premises was vacated on 08.01.2016. The parties are in dispute with regard to the date of possession. The counsel for the respondent states that the actual possession was delivered to the respondent through an intervention of Amin on 07.09.2018. 6. Be that as it may, after the remand by this Court, the issue no. 2 was re-determined with regard to quantum of damages and mense profits. In support of the claim of the respondent, the respondent relied upon a lease-deed, wherein a similar premises was leased to one multi-national bank on a monthly rent of Rs.17000/-. The Court below taking into consideration the said exemplar has fixed the mense profits at Rs.21,400/- per month, which was directed to be paid from September, 2009 with 15% enhancement on the rent/damages after every three years till the handing over of the possession of the disputed property to the plaintiff. 7. Considering the fact that the revisionists did not adduce any evidence, to discredit the exemplar cited by the respondent, the SCC Court has rightly determined the quantum, there being no material placed even before this Court to discredit the exemplar cited by the respondent. No interference is called for in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The revision is accordingly dismissed. Any amount paid by the revisionists shall be adjusted towards the calculation of the rent/damages. Order Date :- 15.5.2025 Arun Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench