Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:16364 Court No. - 4 Case :- S.C.C. REVISION No. - 142 of 2022 Revisionist :- Gauri Shankar Agarwal Opposite Party :- Shiv Babu Gupta Counsel for Revisionist :- Pratibha Ojha,Rajiv Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- Alok Kumar Gupta Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. Heard Sri Rajiv Shukla, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Alok Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent. By means of this revision filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, petitioner, who is a tenant of the landlord respondent, has questioned the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.- 3, Prayagraj dated 7th March, 2022 and decree pursuant thereof in an eviction suit being SCC Suit No.- 29 of 2016. The sole grievance of the petitioner is that petitioner had continuously paid rent and was not in arrears of rent and, therefore, the court was not justified in directing for eviction. Per contra, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent- landlord that Act No.- 13 of 1972 being not applicable to the demised premises and there being no written agreement in between the parties, the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act would be sufficient to determine the tenancy and with issuance of notice and receipt thereof, the tenancy rendered on month to month basis and tenant was liable to be evicted at the instance of landlord by bringing the small causes suit for eviction. It is argued that there is no dispute regarding notice issued to the tenant petitioner on 27th October, 2016 served upon him on 1st November, 2016 and 3rd November, 2016 respectively. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records, the tenant cannot seek any protection as to his tenancy on account of just making payment of rent regularly. Once the tenancy becomes determinable with the issuance of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and since it is not disputed by the tenant petitioner, the Act No.- 13 of 1972 does not apply in the demised premises, in my considered view once the notice stood served upon the tenant petitioner and got determined to be a valid notice, the tenant petitioner was liable to eviction. Whether the tenant petitioner was in arrears of rent would be the factor only to determine arrears of rent and even in the case where the tenant is not in arrears of rent, tenancy becomes determinable. In such circumstances, therefore, the eviction of the petitioner by way of judgment and decree dated 7th March, 2022 cannot be faulted with. What I further find that in the judgment and decree that has been passed by the trial court, there is no direction for payment of arrears of rent. Only the mesne profit has been directed for continuance of occupation of premises in question beyond the period of 30 days, which was provided as breathing time to vacate the premises in question. In such above view of the matter, therefore, I do not find any manifest error in judgment and decree passed by the trial Judge ordering for eviction. The revision petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 5.2.2025 Atmesh Digitally signed by :- ATMESH KESARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad