Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the defendant-tenant/ revisionist and the learned counsel for the plaintiffs-landlords/ respondents.
(2.) Briefly stated facts of the present case are that undisputedly plaintiffs-respondents are landlords of the disputed shops "A" and "B" of House No.133/P/166-167, Rattpurva T.P. Nagar, Kanpur Nagar. The disputed shops being Shop Nos. "A" and "B" were let out to the defendant-tenant/ revisionist. Allegedly on account of default in payment of rent for the period from 01.09.2014 till 31.12.2014, the plaintiffs-landlords/ respondents issued a notice dated 17.01.2015 by registered post which was served upon the defendant-tenant/ revisionist on 19.01.2015. By the aforesaid notice, the tenancy was determined and arrears of rent of Rs.68,000/- was demanded. Neither the disputed shops were vacated nor arrears of rent were paid and as such the plaintiffs-landlords/ respondents filed SCC Suit No.49 of 2015 (Nazmul Hasan Khan vs. Sanjay Kumar Gupta and others), which was decreed by the judgment dated 27.01.2018 passed by the FTC/ Additional District Judge, Court No.52, Kanpur Nagar. Aggrieved with this judgment, the defendant-tenant/ revisionist has filed the present Revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887.
(3.) Submission of learned counsel for the defendant-tenant/ revisionist is that the rent of the Shop "A" was Rs.1550/- per month while the rent of the Shop "B" was Rs.4,000/- per month and as such the court below has committed a manifest error of law to hold that the rent of each of the shops is Rs.5,000/- per month. The court below has rejected the claim of the plaintiffs-landlords for rent of Rs.17,000/- per month for both the shops but at the same time, has committed a manifest error of law to hold that the rent for both the shops is Rs.10,000/- per month. The court below has also ignored the cross-examination of the plaintiffs-landlords dated 17.08.2016. The defendant-tenant/ revisionist has not defaulted in payment of rent and, therefore, the court below has committed a manifest error of law to decree the aforesaid SCC suit. The defendant-tenant/ revisionist has filed rent receipt by List 49ga but the court below has picked up only those rent receipts in which the rent of the shop "A" is recorded as Rs.5000/- and without any basis left those receipts in which the rent was recorded as Rs.1550/- per month.;