Mahendra Dayal, J. - (1.) The tenant-revisionists have filed this revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act against the judgment and decree dated 03.11.2017 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.3, Sitapur in SCC Suit No.9 of 2015 whereby the suit filed by the opposite parties have been decreed and the revisionists have been directed to vacate the shop in question within a month and also pay damages for wrongful use of occupation at the rate of rupees thirty thousand per month till the date of handing over the possession. The interest at the rate of seven percent was also to be paid by the revisionists.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the opposite parties are the owners landlord of a house situated at Station Road Vijai Laxmi Nagar, Pargana Khairabad, District Sitapur, in which a shop was let out to the revisionists. The rate of rent as agreed between the parties was rupees ten thousand per month but since the revisionists wanted to open a showroom in the said shop, major alterations were made in the shop and it was agreed that rupees thirty thousand per month shall also be paid by the revisionists, towards maintenance charge. According to the opposite parties, the rent was paid upto the month of March 2015 at the rate of forty thousand per months but since April 2015, the payment of rent was stopped. The opposite parties then issued a notice thorough their counsel calling upon the revisionists to pay the arrears of rent within fifteen days and also terminated their tenancy on the expiry of thirty days. The notice was issued on 07.08.2015, which was duly replied by the revisionists on 26.08.2015, but neither the arrears of rent was paid nor the shop was vacated. The opposite parties filed the suit for recovery of arrears of rent and damages and also for a decree for eviction.
(3.) The revisionists filed their written statement and admitted the opposite parties to be their landlord but it was stated that the rent agreed between them was only rupees ten thousand per month. The agreement with regard to payment of maintenance charge was between the revisionists and Guru Nanak Maintenance Management Company to which the opposite parties have no concern and have also no right to claim or demand maintenance charge. It was also said that the opposite parties wrongly took rupees forty thousand per month amounting to rupees four lakhs eighty thousand till 01.04.2014 while they were entitled to get only rupees one lakh twenty thousand as rent. There was, thus, excess payment to them amounting to rupees three lakhs sixty thousand. It was also pleaded by the revisionists that there was an arbitration clause in the agreement and as such the suit was barred by the provisions of Arbitration Act.;