PRAKASH KRISHNA,J. - (1.) THE present revision has been filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act against the judgment and decree dated 19-4-2005 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court in SCC suit no. 13 of 1991. The said suit was filed by the plaintiff opposite parties herein for recovery of arrears of rent, damages and ejectment of the present applicant from a shop no. B 7/223 situate in Mohalla Baghara Sonarpura, Varanasi as described at the foot of the plaint. It was claimed that the defendant, who is applicant, is the tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/- and has defaulted in making the payment since 1-6-1998. The tenancy was terminated by giving notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act. It was further pleaded that the tenant is liable for eviction on the ground that he has substantially damaged the tenanted accommodation.
(2.) THE suit was contested on number of pleas. The relationship of landlord and tenant in between the parties was not denied. The case of the tenant in brief was that the monthly rent was Rs. 100/- and he is not a defaulter. It was further pleaded that by fixation of shutter in the shop, the value of the tenanted shop has not been diminished. The validity of the notice was also questioned. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, four issues were framed by the trial court.
(3.) UNDER issue no. 1, it was found that the notice dated 27-4-1998 is a valid notice and the same has not been waived by the notice dated 22-6-1998. Under issue no. 2, the court below has found that the rate of rent was Rs. 1,000/- per month. Under issue no. 3, the court below has found that by fixation of shutter and channel, substantial damage has been caused to the building in question. Consequently, the suit was decreed. Sri C.K. Parekh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the finding recorded by the trial court under issue no. 2 holding that the rate of rent is Rs. 1,000/- per month is vitiated. He submits that the said finding is perverse and against the material on record. The learned counsel for the opposite parties, on the other hand, supports the order under revision. Considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. ;