Sanjay Misra, J. - (1.) Sri P.K.Jain, learned senior counsel has appeared by caveat on behalf of the plaintiff-opposite party. Learned counsel for the revisionist states that the defendant-opposite parties no. 2 and 3 are proforma party, therefore, notice need not be issued.
(2.) Upon hearing Sri Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel for the revisionists, it appears that in the suit filed for eviction of the revisionist tenant from the shop in question on the ground of default and subletting the trial court has record categorical finding that there was a violation of Section 20 (4) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Sri Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel for the revisionists has not been able to demonstrate that the rent for the period of January, 2004 to February, 2013 was paid month to month and that there was no default in payment of monthly rent. The finding recorded by he court below is that the monthly rent was not paid monthly but it was deposited on 04.03.2013 for the period January, 2004 to February, 2013. From the aforesaid it is apparent that the revisionist tenant has defaulted and is not entitled to the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act . No error can be found in the said finding recorded by the trial court on issue no. 6.
(3.) Sri Kshitij Shailendra has then submitted that insofar as the amount of Rs. 4500/- awarded as damages for use and occupation from the date of institution in the suit i.e. 2003 up to the date of eviction is highly excessive and states that the finding recorded on issue no.7 by the trial court is with respect to the rent which the shop can get at present and not 10 years back as such he states that the issue no.7 has wrongly been decided by the trial court.;