- (1.) PRAFULLA C. Pant. J. This revision, preferred under Sec tion 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, is directed against judgment/order and decree dated 28-08-2004 passed by Judge Small Causes Court/additional District Judge/f. T. C.-V, Dehradun in S. C. C. suit No. 22 of 2000 between the parties,
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the Plaintiff/respondent is the owner and landlord of the property No. 97, Rajpur Road, Dehradun. The said prop erty was let out on 01-07-1990 for ten years to revisionist/defendant on rent at the rate of Rs. 8. 300/- per month. According to the lease deed between the parties, it was agreed to enhance 10% of the rent after every three years. On expiry of ten years i. e. on 30-06-2000, the tenancy came to and end. Where-after the plaintiff/respondent asked the defendant/revisionist to va cate the property and got served the notice dated 20-09-2000 and 11-10- 2000 on the defendant bank, asking him if the property is not vacated the plaintiff would be entitled to mesne profits at the rate of 1. 50 per sq. ft. per day. Defendant bank contested the suit and filed its written statement be fore the trial court but it was admitted that it received the notices sent by the plaintiff. However, it was disputed if the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits at the rate of Rs; 1. 50 per sq. ft. per day. It was further pleaded in the written statement that the suit is not maintain able against the bank as it is protected under U. P. Act 13 of 1972. Learned trial court after framing the points of determination, recorded the evidence of the parties and came to the conclusion that the tenancy has al ready got terminated on 30-06-2000. It further came to the conclusion that there is no illegality in the. notices served on the defendant. Otherwise also, it found there is no requirement to serve notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to the defendant as the tenancy was-fixed period tenancy. The trial court further held that the tenant is not protected from eviction by U. P. Act 13 of 1972. Lastly, it was held by the trial court that the defendant/bank is liable to pay Rs. 1. 50 per sq. ft. per day as mesne prof its to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the suit was decreed. Aggrieved by which this revision has been preferred by the de fendant.
(3.) I heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. ' It is not disputed between the parties that on 01-07-1990, plaintiff (re spondent) agreed to let out the property in question to the defendant (revision ist) on rent at the rate of Rs. 8300/- per month for ten years. It is also not dis puted that rent was to be enhanced by 10% after every three years.;