Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:40079 Court No. - 7 Case :- S.C.C. REVISION No. - 23 of 2024 Revisionist :- Shiv Kumar Tulsyan And Another Opposite Party :- Prem Kumar Yadav Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Naveen Chandra Upadhyay Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned counsel for the opposite party. 2. The present revision has been filed challenging an order dated 19.10.2024 passed by the SCC. 3. The facts in brief are that the revisionists, who are the landlord of the premises in question, had given the shop in question on rent initially at a monthly rent of Rs. 1500/- which was subsequently increased to Rs. 2,500/- per month w.e.f. January, 2009. It was stated that after 2011, the rent was not paid. As such, a composite notice of rent and ejectment was issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. In the said notice, the tenancy was determined as an arrears of rent was also demanded. Admittedly, there is no tenancy agreement in between the parties. Based upon the pleadings, the SCC Court framed as many as six issues/points for determination. 4. With regard to point no. 1, a finding was returned that the relationship of the landlord and the tenant existed in between the parties. The rent was also increased to Rs. 2,500/- per month. With regard to issue no. 2, a finding was recorded that no rent agreement existed in between the parties and the opposite party continued as a tenant. With regard to the point of determination no. 3, it was specifically recorded that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were not applicable. With regard to the point of determination no. 4, with regard to default, a finding was recorded that the plaintiff could not establish his fault and thus, the finding was returned against the revisionists. With regard to point no. 5 as to whether, the opposite party was entitled to benefit of Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, a finding was recorded in favour of the tenant giving the benefit of Section 114 of the T.P. Act and after recording the said findings, the suit in question was dismissed. 5. Challenging the said order, learned counsel for the revisionists argues that a composite notice determining the tenancy and for arrears of rent was served and considering the fact that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were not applicable, even if the finding with regard to arrears of rent came to be decided against the revisionists, it was incumbent upon the SCC Court to have decreed the suit for ejectment. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, argues that the findings of fact have been specifically recorded that no arrears of rent was committed by the opposite party- tenant and thus, no interference warrants against the impugned judgement. 7. Considering the submissions as recorded above, it is clear that in terms of the notice, the tenancy was determined specifically and an arrears of rent was also alleged. Once the tenancy was determined by serving a composite notice under Section 106 of the T.P. Act, irrespective of the arrears of rent, the suit was bound to be decreed. 8. In view thereof, the impugned judgement insofar as it arises the decree of ejectment is concerned, cannot be sustained and is quashed. No interference is called for insofar as there was no arrears of rent. 9. Thus, the revision is partly allowed. The suit as filed by the revisionists decrees to the extent of relief of ejectment. The amount deposited by the opposite party shall be paid to the revisionists on his moving an appropriate application. Order Date :- 14.7.2025 Shravan Digitally signed by :- SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench