Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:40412 Court No. - 7 Case :- S.C.C. REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 8 of 2023 Revisionist :- Dr. Sunil Bishen And Ors. Opposite Party :- Jagdish Gandhi And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Anurag Shukla,Vivek Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Manish Vaish,Prakash Kumar Sinha Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. I.A. No.3 of 2023 1. Heard Shri Anurag Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionists. 2. The delay in filing the revision is condoned. 3. The application is allowed. Order on Revision 4. The revision is heard. 5. The present revision has been filed against the judgement and order dated 28.03.2023 only to the extent that the JSC Court has refused against the judgement and order dated 28.03.2023 only to the extent that the JSC Court has refused to grant damages to the revisionist claimed @ Rs.50,000/- per month. 6. The facts, in brief, are that the respondents were the tenant of the revisionist at a monthly rent of Rs.5,200/- per month. As the respondents did not vacate the premises, a suit was filed seeking a decree of arrears of rent and ejectment. Along with the said suit, damages quantified at Rs.50,000/- per month were also claimed. The JSC Court framed three issues in between the parties. The first being with regard to the relationship of the land lord and tenant, the second being with regard to whether the tenancy has been determined and the third being with regard to the claim of arrears of rent quantified at Rs.1,27,200/- and the damages as claimed @ Rs.50,000/- per month. The plaint filed by the revisionist is on record, wherein for the purposes of valuation and court fees, for the ejectment, the suit was valued at Rs.62,400/-, for arrears of rent at Rs.1,87,200/-, for damages, for use and occupation, the valuation was shown as nil. The trial court while deciding the issue No.3 held that no material was placed in support of the claim of Rs.50,000/- as damages and thus, the suit was decreed. However, the prayer for grant of damages was rejected. 7. Learned counsel for the revisionists and learned counsel for opposite parties agree that the premises has already been vacated and the present revision is confined to grant of damages as claimed by the revisionist @ Rs.50,000/- per month. 8. Learned counsel for the revisionist argues that along with the written argument filed before the JSC Court, a circle rate list issued by the District Magistrate was filed and thus, according to him, the evidence was on record, which has not been considered. 9. The said argument is fallacious as no evidence admittedly was adduced before the JSC Court. Filing of a document along with the written argument cannot be termed as evidence as has been argued by learned counsel for the revisionist. 10. In the absence of any evidence for claiming the damages @ Rs.50,000/- per month, no error can be seen to be committed by the JSC court warranting interference. 11. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. Order Date :- 15.7.2025 Ashutosh Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench