Sanjay Misra, J. - (1.) Heard Sri S.F.A.Naqvi, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri S.S.Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the sole plaintiff opposite party.
(2.) This revision has been filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that earlier the revisionist was tenant of a shop on monthly rent of Rs. 60/- and the plaintiff opposite party had preferred a petition under Section 21 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for release of the said shop, which was registered as P.A. Case No. 81 of 1990. The said case was allowed on 11.01.1994 the appeal was dismissed and the writ petition filed by the revisionist was disposed of. However, in the writ petition by the order dated 21.08.2003 the respondent landlord was required to let out to the revisionist the shop at schedule B and the revisionist came in possession of the said shop at schedule B.
(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist states that the rent of the new shop was not fixed and hence the matter was agitated and ultimately the Prescribed Authority, Mathura fixed the rent of this shop @ Rs. 640/- per month vide its order dated 25.03.2008 and the writ petition filed there against was also dismissed, hence the admitted rent is Rs. 640/- per month.;