- (1.) Heard Mohd. Arif Khan, Senior Advocate and Sri Anurag Narain, Counsel for the respondents. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 26.8.2006 passed by the District Judge, Hardoi in S.C.C. Suit No. 4 of 2005, Hardoi Zila Sahkari Bank Limited (in short referred to as the Revisionist-Bank) has preferred this revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act.
(2.) Draped in brevity, the facts giving rise to the instant revision are that one Smt. Manno Rani Gupta wife of Dr. Suresh Chandra Gupta, the initial owner and landlady of House No. 47, Mohalla Boarding House, Hardoi, transferred the disputed house in favour of respondents-plaintiffs through a registered sale deed dated 27.3.2002. Therefore, the respondents-plaintiffs became the landlords of the disputed house. Revisionist-Bank used to transfer the rent payable in the Saving Bank Account No. 7341 of the defendants-respondents every month. A notice to quit was sent by the respondents-plaintiffs to the revisionist-defendant under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act on 4.11.2004, which was served upon the revisionist on 5.11.2004. When after expiry of the period indicated in the notice, the premises were not vacated by the revisionist-Bank, the respondents preferred a suit for ejectment of the defendant from the disputed accommodation and also claimed pendente-lite and future damages at the rate of Rs. 2588/- per month, if the same has not already been credited in their Saving Bank Account lying in the Revisionist-Bank.
(3.) The Court below framed the following questions for determination: 1. Whether the notice to quit is not valid? 2. Whether the notice dated 4.11.2004 stood waived? 3. Whether the tenancy in favour of the defendant is continuing for another term of five years from 5.7.2003? 4. Whether the defendant has acquired the status of statutory tenant on the basis of the principle of holding over of the tenancy? 5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to any other relief?;