Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:38707 Court No. - 7 Case :- S.C.C. REVISION No. - 9 of 2023 Revisionist :- Rajesh Singh Chauhan Opposite Party :- Gagan Gurnani Counsel for Revisionist :- Manish Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Umesh Kumar Tiwari,Kunwar Ravi Prakash,Vivek Kumar Rai Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Aviral Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 2. The present revision has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 27.02.2023 passed by the JSCC Court. 3. The facts as emerge are that the respondent landlord had filed a suit stating that he was the landlord and the owner of the premises being Shop No. 9, which was given on rent to the revisionist. It was stated that without the permission, the tenant had raised construction and had expanded the premises and thus disfigured the shop in question. It was also stated that the shop is located at a very prominent place adjacent to various commercial establishments. It was stated that fair rent of the commercial establishments of the nearby premises was fixed at Rs.460/- sq.mt. It was also stated that initially the tenancy was fixed at Rs.150/- per month with the stipulation to increase the rent by 25% after every five years. It was stated that tenant had paid rent on 24.12.1995 up to May, 1986 and thereafter he did not pay the rent, as such, the tenant was in default of rent and the amount was quantified as Rs.100720/-. It was also stated that notice was also served and despite the service of notice, the amount has not been paid. Damages in the form of mesne profits was also demanded. The revisionist herein appeared and filed the written statement and denied the contentions. Based upon the pleadings, as many as four points of determination were framed by the JSCC Court. The Issue No. 1 with regard to the relationship of the landlord and tenant. The revisional Court recorded that the provisions of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 would not apply. The said finding was recorded based upon the contention that initially the rent was fixed at Rs.150/- which was to be increased by 25% and thus, the rent had exceeded Rs.2000/- per month, on which the Rent Control Act became applicable. The JSCC Court also recorded that a notice was duly served demanding the rent and in reply to the said notice, it was admitted that initially the shop in question was covered by a tin-shed and was ultimately converted into a permanent roof. Based upon the said admission, a finding was recorded that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed. The second point was with regard to the arrears of rent. After considering the evidence, it was recorded that the amount deposited by the revisionist through tender was short and an actual amount of Rs.129375/- had to be deposited whereas only Rs.8625/- was deposited, thus it was found that there was default in payment of rent. Based upon the said, the other two issues were decided and the suit in question was decreed with arrears of rent and damages quantified at Rs.809970/-. 4. The counsel for the revisionist argues that the finding of the trial Court with regard to applicability of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 is flawed for the reason that no document existed with regard to the quantum of rent fixed in between the parties as well as its periodical enhancement as pleaded by the landlord, however, on being confronted, the counsel for the revisionist could not show any allotment order in his favour, which is mandatory in terms of the provisions of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. Even if the argument of the revisionist is accepted for the sake of arguments, admittedly, the revisionist is not in occupation by virtue of any valid allotment order and thus his status would be that of a trespasser, even if it is accepted for the sake of argument that U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 would apply. It also bears from the record that the findings with regard to periodical enhancement of rent have been recorded after analyzing the evidence on record and there is no material to establish that the said finding is perverse. 5. In view of the above, no interference is called for. 6. After the arguments were concluded, the counsel for the revisionist states that some reasonable time be granted and confined his argument to that point alone. In view thereof, the present revision is disposed of granting time to the revisionist to vacate the shop in question on or before 31.12.2025 subject to revisionist filing an undertaking in the form of affidavit before the JSCC Court undertaking to vacate the premises on or before 31.12.2025 and to handover the vacant and physical possession to the respondent landlord and to no one else. The revisionist shall also deposit the entire decretal amount within a period of four months from today. In the event of failure to either file the undertaking or to deposit the rent as directed above, the respondent landlord would be at liberty to execute the decree in accordance with law forthwith. Order Date :- 8.7.2025 Arun Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench