PRAKASH KRISHNA,J. - (1.) CHALLENGING the legality, validity and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 23rd of August, 2007 passed by the Judge, Small Cause Court/Additional District Judge, Court No.6, Muzaffarnagar in SCC Suit No.5 of 2004, the present revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 has been filed by the plaintiff. The SCC Suit No.5 of 2004 was instituted by the present applicant against the opposite parties for recovery of arrears of difference in rent for the period 1.6.1998 to 30.11.2002 at the rate of Rs.845/- per month total Rs.45,630/- and arrears of rent since 1st of December, 2002 to 22nd of March, 2004 at the rate of Rs.2,145/- per month total Rs.33,783/-, mesne profit from 23rd of March, 2004 to 25th of March, 2004 till the delivery of possession and the damages at the same rate i.e. Rs.2,145/- for use and occupation of the property described at the foot of the plaint. The said suit was filed on the pleas inter alia that the plaintiff is the owner and landlord of the property described at the foot of the plaint wherein the office of Senior Marketing Inspector and the office of Regional Food and Civil Supplies are the tenants. Initially, the rent was Rs.1300/- per month which was enhanced to Rs.2,145/-w.e.f. 1.6.1998 by an order passed under Section 21 (8) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 by the Rent Control & Eviction Officer in Case No.8 of 1998.The said order was challenged unsuccessfully by the defendants in appeal No.5 of 2001 which was dismissed on 25th of September, 2003. The said judgment of the appellate authority is subjudice in writ petition no.2773 of 2004 before the High Court but no stay order has been passed therein. The defendants are, thus, liable to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.2,145/- which they have failed to pay in spite of notices of demand and termination given under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act which was served on 23.1.2004. Requisite notice under Section 80 of C.P.C has also been served. Hence the suit.
(2.) THE suit was contested on the pleas inter alia that the defendants are not defaulters and they are liable to pay the rent/damages only at the rate of Rs.1300/- per month as was agreed between the parties. The rent enhanced by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to Rs.2,145/- is subject matter of the writ petition no.2773 of 2004 which is pending. The validity of the notice and the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court to entertain the suit were also questioned. The parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. The plaintiff examined Ramesh Prakash PW/1 and filed the documentary evidence in support of her case. The defendants, on the other hand, produced Brijendra Kumar as DW/1 besides documentary evidence.
(3.) BEFORE proceeding further it may also be noticed that during the pendency of the suit, the defendants deposited the entire arrears of rent, damages etc. at the rate of Rs.1300/- per month before the trial Court to avail the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act. An application to strike off the defence filed by the plaintiff for not depositing the rent at the rate of Rs.2,145/- per month was dis­missed by the judgment under revision. The Court below was of the view that the dispute regarding the rate of rent still subsists between the parties as the aforestated writ petition is pending adjudication, no case of striking off the de­fence has been made out.;